Gender Imbalance in Supreme Court Appointments in India

Source: The post Gender imbalance persists in Supreme Court appointments in India has been created, based on the article “India needs more women judges in the Supreme Court” published in “The Hindu ” on 3 September 2025. Gender Imbalance in Supreme Court Appointments in India.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Judiciary

Context: On August 9, 2025, two Supreme Court vacancies arose after Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia retired. The chance to correct gender imbalance was missed. Justice B.V. Nagarathna remained the only woman among 34 judges. Her dissent on Justice Vipul Pancholi’s elevation, citing seniority and regional representation, was not considered. Justice Vipul Pancholi and Justice Alok Aradhe were sworn in on August 29, 2025.

For detailed information on Low representation of women in India’s higher judiciary read this article here

Why has women under-representation persisted?

1. Sparse history and rare peaks: Since 1950, only 11 women have served, 3.8% of 287 judges. The women and tenures are: Fathima Beevi (1989–1992), Sujata V. Manohar (1994–1999), Ruma Pal (2000–2006), Gyan Sudha Mishra (2010–2014), Ranjana Prakash Desai (2011–2014), R. Banumathi (2014–2020), Indu Malhotra (2018–2021), Indira Banerjee (2018–2022), Hima Kohli (2021–2024), Bela M. Trivedi (2021–2025), B.V. Nagarathna (2021–2027). On August 31, 2021, three women were appointed together; with Justice Indira Banerjee already on the Bench, women briefly crossed 10%.
2. Missing social diversity: No woman from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes has served. Justice Fathima Beevi is the only woman from a minority faith.
3. Bar-to-Bench and pipeline gaps: Since 1950, nine men have been directly elevated from the Bar. Only one woman, Justice Indu Malhotra, received such elevation. The Bar route has not worked for women in India.
4. Late appointments and curtailed influence: Women are often appointed late, so tenures are short and seniority is limited. Only five women have been in the Collegium, and only three participated in Supreme Court appointments. Justice Fathima Beevi and Justice Indu Malhotra served under three years, a rarity shared by only five male judges. Justice Nagarathna is slated to be CJI for 36 days, from September 24, 2027 to October 29, 2027.

For detailed information on Women in India’s justice system read this article here

How does the appointment process work and what are the issues with it?

1. Formal route under the Memorandum of Procedure: The CJI consults a Collegium of the four seniormost judges. After the CJI’s final recommendation, the Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs places it before the Prime Minister, who advises the President.
2. Opaque criteria and inconsistent disclosure: Selection criteria are not public. In 2017, the Collegium led by CJI Dipak Misra disclosed some reasons. Later practice was inconsistent. Under CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, reasons were more detailed. Caste, religion, and region were sometimes considered. Gender is not taken into consideration at all.
3. Secrecy over who is considered: There is no transparency about candidates or timing. Higher judiciary appointments are not made publicly. This limits scrutiny and weakens accountability.
4. Seniority claims used selectively: Former CJIs cited the non-availability of senior women. The current round ignored seniority while overlooking senior women in High Courts. No woman has been directly elevated from the Bar since 2018.

What must change, and why does it matter?

1. Institutionalise gender in selection: Adopt a written policy mandating diversity across gender, caste, religion, and region. Make gender representation a criterion for Supreme Court and High Court appointments. Candidates should show outstanding ability, sound judgment, strong records, and sensitivity to varied social contexts.
2. Open the process to public view: Make pending appointments public. Disclose who is being considered and why. Clear reasons will align decisions with merit and diversity goals.
3. Align practice with equality rulings: The Court has promoted gender equality and directed Bar associations to reserve 30% of elected seats and office-bearer posts for women. Yet there is no internal mandate in constitutional courts. This gap should end.
4. Representation strengthens justice and trust: Women judges bring experience-shaped perspectives. Their presence improves reasoning, outcomes, and public trust. A diverse Bench makes the Court more representative of the citizens it serves.

Question for practice:

Examine why women remain under-represented in the Supreme Court of India and how the current appointment process contributes to this.