Answer

Despite increased public engagement, women remain underrepresented in senior judicial positions. Their limited presence in the judiciary raises concerns about inclusive justice, as diverse representation is essential for courts to address citizens’ concerns and deliver fair judgments, necessitating urgent institutional and structural reforms.

Constitutional Principles of Equality Related to Women

• Article 14 – Right to Equality: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws for all individuals, ensuring that women are treated on par with men in all spheres.
• Article 15(3) – Positive Discrimination: Empowers the state to make special provisions for women and children to ensure substantive equality in employment, education, and representation.
• Article 16 – Equal Opportunity in Public Employment: Mandates non-discriminatory appointments in public offices, including the judiciary, ensuring fair representation for women.
• Article 39(a) – Equal Pay and Livelihood: Directs the state to ensure that men and women receive equal pay and have equal opportunities for a livelihood, including legal professions.
• Article 51A(e) – Duty to Renounce Discrimination: Encourages citizens to renounce practices derogatory to women, fostering a gender-sensitive work environment in the legal and judicial system.

Despite These Principles, Women Remain Underrepresented in India’s Higher Judiciary

• Low Representation in High Courts: Women judges constitute only 14.27% of High Court judges, with some High Courts having just one or zero female judges.
  For example: The Allahabad High Court, the largest in India, has only 3 women out of 79 judges (2%).
• Even Lower Representation in the Supreme Court: Only two women judges currently serve in the Supreme Court, and after June 2025, only one woman will remain.
  For example: In 75 years of the Supreme Court’s existence, only 1 woman has been elevated directly from the Bar compared to 9 men.
• Delayed Appointments and Seniority Gap: Women judges are appointed at an older age (53 years) than men (51.8 years), reducing their chances of becoming Chief Justices.
  For example: Out of 25 High Courts, only Gujarat has a female Chief Justice.
• Collegium Bias Against Women: The opaque collegium system often overlooks qualified women for judicial appointments or delays their confirmation.
  For example: Since 2020, 9 women were recommended for High Court appointments, but 5 were rejected by the government.
• Glass Ceiling and Perception of Inferiority: Women in the legal profession face higher scrutiny and are expected to prove their merit more rigorously than men.
  For example: Women lawyers often face resistance when arguing in male-dominated courtrooms, affecting their career growth.

Structural, Institutional, and Socio-Cultural Barriers Responsible for the Gender Gap

Structural Barriers

• Basic Amenities: Many district courts lack essential facilities like dedicated washrooms for women judges and lawyers.
  For example: Nearly one-fifth of the district court complexes in the country lack separate toilets for women, according to a report published by the Centre for Research and Planning of the Supreme Court recently.
• Transfer Policies: Insensitivity to women’s roles as primary caregivers makes it harder for them to continue in the judiciary. ​
• Lack of Work-Life Balance Policies: The judicial system lacks flexible work policies, parental leave, and institutional support, discouraging women from pursuing judicial careers.

Institutional Barriers

• Seniority Norms: The seniority-based elevation of High Court judges to the Supreme Court disadvantages women, as career breaks for family responsibilities often limit their seniority.
• Delayed Government Clearance: Even when women are recommended by the collegium, their names are often delayed or rejected at the executive level.

Socio-Cultural Barriers

• Stereotyping and Gender Bias: Women in law are perceived as less competent in handling high-stakes criminal and constitutional cases, limiting their career progression.
• Male-Dominated Legal Fraternity: The legal profession has historically been a male bastion, with fewer mentorship opportunities for women.
  For example: Some High Courts, like those in Uttarakhand, Meghalaya, and Tripura, have no women judges.

Comprehensive Reforms to Ensure Greater Judicial Diversity

• Transparent Appointment Process: The collegium should set clear merit-based criteria and allow lawyers to apply for judgeship through an open selection system.
• Gender Diversity Mandate: High Courts and the Supreme Court should aim for at least 33% representation of women, similar to parliamentary seat reservations.
• Targeted Training and Mentorship Programs: Establish judicial mentorship schemes and fast-track leadership programs for women lawyers to prepare them for judgeship.
  For example: The National Judicial Academy can introduce specialized programs for women lawyers aspiring to be judges.
• Government Accountability in Appointments: The executive must be bound by time limits to process collegium recommendations, ensuring timely confirmation of women judges.
  For instance: A statutory time frame of 90 days for government clearance can prevent politically motivated delays.
• Workplace Reforms in Judiciary: Introduce gender-sensitive policies like parental leave, flexible work hours, and protection against workplace harassment to retain women in the profession.
  For example: Courts can implement family-friendly work schedules and on-site childcare facilities to support women judges and lawyers.

Achieving gender parity in the higher judiciary is not just a matter of representation but a step toward transformative justice. Addressing structural biases through institutional reforms, reservation policies, and gender-sensitive judicial appointments can ensure inclusivity. Simultaneously, legal education outreach, workplace reforms, and societal attitudinal shifts will create a pipeline of capable women judges, fostering a truly equitable judiciary.

DOWNLOAD PDF