Women Representation in Judiciary – Significance & Challenges – Explained Pointwise

The recent appointment of Justice V. Mohana as a Supreme Court judge has renewed attention on the issue of women’s representation in India’s higher judiciary. As only the 12th woman judge in the Supreme Court’s 76-year history, her elevation marks progress toward gender diversity, yet women remain significantly underrepresented in judicial leadership positions. The “glass ceiling” remains strong for women judges, especially in promotions to higher courts. Minority and marginalized women face even greater barriers to advancement.

What is the Status of Representation of Women in Judiciary?

• Supreme Court:
  • As of June 2026, only 2 woman judges (Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice V. Mohana) serves out of 37 judges, yielding a representation of just 5.4%.
  • In its entire history since 1950, only 12 women judges have ever been appointed to the Supreme Court (Of them, 6 have been appointed since 2014 and 5 since 2018) — just 3.8% out of 287 total appointments.
  • No woman has held the Office of Chief Justice of India.
• High Courts:
  • Collectively for all High Courts, Women Judges constitute only 13.1% of the Judges.
  • However, there are considerable variations among High Courts (HCs). 5 HCs have not a single woman Judge. Another 7 HCs have < 10% women judges. Sikkim and Telangana HCs have the highest representation at 33.3%.
• District & Subordinate Judiciary:
  • Women Judges constitute ~35% of the Judges in the lower courts. Here the proportion varies from 19.5% in Gujarat to 70% in Goa.
  • As of 2025, 7,852 women judges serve in district and subordinate courts.
  • 17 of the 36 States and UTs had a smaller proportion of women in the lower judiciary than the national average.
• Out of 1.7 million advocates in the country only 15% are women. Only 2% elected representatives in the State Bar Councils are women.

What are the reasons for Low Representation of Women in Judiciary?

1. Judicial Rules:
   • Article 233 puts the condition of 7 years of practice as an advocate to be eligible for appointment as District Judge. The Judiciary has interpreted this as 7 years of continuous practice.
   • Most States’ Judicial rules dictate a minimum age of 35 years for entry as a district judge through direct recruitment.
   • No one below the age of 55 years can be appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court. Marriage and family responsibilities in this age group reduces the ability of women to compete for roles in the Judiciary.
2. ‘Leaking Pipeline’ Syndrome:
   • The leaking pipeline syndrome is often used as a metaphor for the way women disappear as they move from lower to higher levels.
   • The phenomenon of the leaking pipeline is witnessed across a spectrum of careers including the Judiciary (~35% Judges in Lower Courts to ~11% in the SC).
   • Family responsibilities, personal choices, long working hours and work-life conflict, working conditions, lack of access to employment opportunities, barriers to advancement, inadequate support from family results in women frequently dropping out mid-career.
   • This ‘voluntary withdrawal’ masks the tacit consent given to patriarchally prescribed gender roles.
3. Opaque Recruitment Process (Collegium System): Unlike lower courts, where entry is based on transparent, merit-based competitive exams (Judicial Services Examinations), appointments to the High Courts and the Supreme Court are managed by the Collegium system. Because the process lacks institutionalized, objective criteria for selection, it heavily relies on existing professional networks. Historically dominated by men, these networks create an unconscious bias that favors male candidates, often overlooking highly competent women. 
4. Shorter Tenures and the Seniority Trap: High Court judges retire at 62, and Supreme Court judges at 65. Because of their late entry, women frequently have shorter judicial tenures. This prevents them from gaining the seniority required to enter the Supreme Court or to sit on the internal Collegium councils that choose future judges, perpetuating the cycle.
5. Bar Councils and Bar Associations: Women are significantly underrepresented in Bar Councils and Bar Associations, which can provide a pathway to visibility and leadership. The Bar Council of India, for instance, has no women members, and only 9 out of 441 State Bar Council representatives are women. 
6. Hostile Courtroom Culture: Women lawyers frequently report facing patronizing attitudes, casual sexism, and a lack of mentorship from senior male colleagues. This everyday friction makes litigation an exhausting space for women to sustain a multi-decade career.
7. Lack of Supportive Infrastructure: The dearth of supportive provisions and infrastructure, from toilets to maternity leave, also contribute to a high attrition rate amongst women lawyers. In 6,000 courts across the country, 22% of them do not have separate toilets for women. As a result, many women law graduates prefer to join the corporate sector.
8. Lack of Enabling Provisions: While quotas for women have been implemented in the lower courts of many states, these policies are yet to be implemented in the higher judiciary. States like Assam, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha have these enabling provisions and have > 40% women judges.

What are the impacts of Low representation of Women in Judiciary?

1. Gender Bias in Judgements: The absence of diverse perspectives on the bench often results in a narrow understanding of social dynamics and gender-based violence. Historically, this has led to problematic judicial reasoning:
   • Victim-Blaming: Courts have sometimes granted bail to perpetrators under archaic conditions (e.g., asking the attacker to get a rakhi tied by the victim).
   • Patriarchal Expectations: Judges have made rulings assessing whether a woman’s post-rape behavior fits the standard of an “ideal” rape victim rather than focusing on the criminality of the act itself.
   • The basis of such judgements is limited to the ideal dignity of a woman, and not on the criminal nature of the act itself.
2. Narrowing the Scope of Law: Women judges often bring lived experiences that push the boundaries of jurisprudence, introducing new legal concepts related to equal opportunity, sexual harassment (e.g. Vishaka Guidelines in India), and reproductive rights. Low representation means these vital areas of law may progress slowly or remain undeveloped.
3. Deficiencies in Legal Reasoning: The ability of the legal system to understand and respond to different social circumstances and experiences is enriched by more judicial diversity. If there is not adequate women’s representation, the justice system will not be able to meet the needs of women and other underserved communities.
4. Impact on Access to Justice: Women litigants, especially those from economically weaker sections, often feel more comfortable and confident presenting their cases before a female judge. The lack of women on the bench can deter women from seeking legal recourse in sensitive matters, contributing to a justice gap.
5. Undermining of Gender Equality & Causing Trust Deficit: Lack of women representatives in courts give rise to questions about the courts’ legitimacy as representatives of the societies they serve. A judiciary that does not reflect nearly half the population lacks legitimacy and fails the principle of representative justice.
6. Lack of Role Models: High-ranking women judges serve as powerful role models and sources of inspiration for young girls and women entering the legal profession and other fields. Their visibility breaks stereotypes about women’s capacity for leadership and high office.
7. Reinforcement of Societal Stereotypes: The lack of visible, high-ranking women in the judicial system reinforces the societal stereotype that women are incapable of holding top leadership or adjudicatory roles. Conversely, a robust presence of women on the bench breaks these biases and promotes egalitarianism.

How are different countries promoting greater representation of women in the judiciary?

What should be the way forward?

1. Gender-Based Affirmative Action: Implement a policy where a certain percentage (e.g. 30% where feasible) of judicial positions, particularly at the District and High Court level, are reserved for women. While the Supreme Court appointments are based on seniority and merit, High Court recommendations must proactively seek out qualified women candidates.
2. Mandatory Inclusion in Selection Committees: Ensure that all shortlisting and selection bodies, including the Collegium (at the Supreme Court level) and State-level committees, include at least one woman member. This inclusion brings diversity to the decision-making process itself, challenging inherent biases during candidate evaluation.
3. Reforms in State Bar Councils and Bar Associations: State Bar Councils and Bar Associations must implement structural support systems. Recent Supreme Court directives mandating 30% seat reservations for women in Bar Council and Association elections must be strictly enforced. Empowering women at the litigation stage ensures they are visible, mentored, and naturally positioned for direct bench elevations.
4. Broaden the Zone of Consideration: Collegiums can proactively consider capable women advocates practicing in the Supreme Court who belong to different states, ensuring a wider talent pool when suitable state-level candidates are scarce.
5. Lateral Entry from Academia: Encourage and facilitate the lateral entry of women with strong academic backgrounds (law professors, legal scholars) into the mid-level judiciary or as judges in specialized tribunals. This broadens the entry point beyond traditional litigation tracks.
6. Addressing Family and Work-Life Balance: The biggest hurdle for women in the legal field is often the lack of institutional support for work-life balance. Judicial academies and the bar associations should advocate for:
   • Childcare Facilities within court complexes.
   • Flexible Timings for female lawyers and judges, particularly during early motherhood.
   • Adequate Maternity Leave policies that do not negatively impact seniority or career progression.
7. Better Infrastructure: Provide basic, dignified infrastructure in all courts, especially at the lower judiciary level (e.g. separate, well-maintained washrooms and retiring rooms and fully subsidized institutional childcare facilities), to support the comfort and safety of women lawyers and judges.
8. Eliminating Gender Bias Training: Introduce mandatory, regular gender sensitization and unconscious bias training for all sitting judges, law clerks, and court staff. This is essential to create a neutral and respectful court environment for female advocates and litigants.
9. Mentorship and Support Networks: Establish formal mentorship programs where senior women judges and lawyers mentor junior female colleagues, helping them navigate the systemic challenges and stay in the profession long enough to be considered for elevation.

Conclusion:
Bridging the gender gap in the judiciary will ensure that the judiciary is not only independent but also truly representative of the society it is tasked with serving.