In News:

The Supreme Court of India, the apex judicial body, suffers from a severe gender imbalance, raising questions about inclusivity, representation, and public trust. With the retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in August 2025, only one woman judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, remains out of a sanctioned strength of 34 judges.

Historically, since 1950, only 11 women judges (3.8%) have been appointed to the Court, beginning with Justice Fathima Beevi in 1989. This under-representation is stark, considering the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

Causes of Gender Imbalance

Several structural and societal factors contribute to this disparity:

• Opaque Collegium System: Judicial appointments are governed by the Collegium, led by the Chief Justice of India and four senior judges. Criteria for selection are neither public nor institutionalised, unlike considerations for caste, religion, or regional representation. Gender, notably, is not treated as a mandatory criterion.
• Late Elevation and Short Tenures: Women judges are often appointed later in their careers, limiting their tenure and chances of rising to senior positions or entering the Collegium. Of the 11 women judges to date, only five have served in the Collegium, and the first woman CJI, Justice Nagarathna, is scheduled for a brief 36-day tenure in 2027.
• Barriers from the Legal Profession: Very few women lawyers are elevated directly from the Bar; only Justice Indu Malhotra has achieved this. Structural biases, gender stereotypes, and lack of mentorship impede women’s career progression in law.
• Institutional and Societal Resistance: Male-dominated professional culture and low political prioritisation of gender diversity exacerbate the exclusion of women from the judiciary.

Implications

• On the Judiciary: The lack of women judges narrows the Court’s perspectives, undermines legitimacy, and limits jurisprudential growth, particularly on gender-sensitive issues. Short tenures prevent women from influencing appointments or policy within the judiciary.
• On Society: The gender gap weakens citizens’ trust in the judiciary, discourages aspiring women lawyers, and contradicts the spirit of constitutional morality. A judiciary that does not reflect societal diversity risks democratic and representative deficits.

Way Forward

• Institutional Reforms: Appointment resolutions should mandate gender diversity. Criteria and reasons for appointments must be publicly disclosed.
• Pipeline Development: Increase women judges in High Courts, encourage women from the Bar through mentorship, and create structured pathways to the higher judiciary.
• Policy Anchoring: Adopt a written diversity policy, integrating constitutional morality and substantive equality, as recommended by the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission.
• Global Lessons: Countries like Canada and the UK institutionalise diversity in their top courts; India can adopt similar frameworks.

Conclusion

Bridging the gender gap in the Supreme Court is not mere tokenism—it is a constitutional and ethical imperative. Women judges bring unique perspectives, enrich judicial reasoning, and strengthen public confidence in justice. To uphold its credibility as India’s guardian of equality, the Supreme Court must institutionalise gender diversity, ensuring that the judiciary reflects the society it serves.