India Needs More Women Judges in the Supreme Court

India’s Supreme Court Needs More Women Judges: Bridging the Gap Between Principle and Practice

The glaring underrepresentation of women in India’s Supreme Court isn't just a question of optics—it signifies systemic exclusion that undermines judicial equity. Despite decades of progressive rulings advocating gender equality, the Court's own gender disparity flies in the face of constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14 and 15. The issue goes beyond nominal diversity; it is a matter of substantive justice in a nation grappling with entrenched gender inequalities.

Institutional Landscape: Legal Framework and Disparities

Since its inception in 1950, the Supreme Court has appointed only 11 women judges, accounting for less than 4% of its total appointments. Justice Fathima Beevi, the first woman to rise to the bench in 1989, initiated a slow trajectory marked more by symbolic gestures than systemic change. The brief spike in 2021—when three women were appointed simultaneously—was the exception rather than the rule. In 2025, just one of 34 sitting judges in the Supreme Court is a woman: Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Meanwhile, representation in High Courts barely touches 14%, and even in the lower judiciary—where women make up around 30% of judicial officers—the disparity persists. The collegium system, which controls appointments to superior courts, continues to skirt gender inclusivity as an explicit criterion, despite repeated governmental advisories urging social diversity.

The Argument for Increasing Women’s Representation

Enhancing Judicial Sensitivity and Perspective: The presence of women on the bench enhances sensitivity in cases involving gender-based violence, workplace harassment, reproductive rights, and family law. As the Justice Leila Seth Committee on bias in rape cases highlighted, male-dominated benches often fail to grasp the realities of gendered violence.

Public Trust and Legitimacy: A visibly inclusive judiciary strengthens institutional credibility. Public confidence in courts is tied to their perceived fairness; a judiciary steeped in systemic exclusion undermines its constitutional promise of equality and justice for “We, the People.” A 2022 survey by PRS Legislative Research found that 62% of litigants felt the judiciary lacked sensitivity in cases involving gender issues.

The Pipeline Problem: A limited pool of senior women advocates and judges complicates appointments. Only one woman, Justice Indu Malhotra, has ever been elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court—a stark contrast to the nine men who have accomplished this. Institutional barriers—from gender stereotypes to opaque collegium deliberations—dissuade women from pursuing judicial careers to the highest echelons.

Critiquing the Institutional Mechanisms

The Collegium’s Opaque Functioning: The collegium system neither systematically applies gender diversity as a criterion nor explains its decisions. This lack of transparency exacerbates exclusion. Resolutions justifying appointments have been sporadic, such as the absence of any formal rationale in the appointment of Justice Nagarathna despite her imminent position as India’s first woman Chief Justice in 2027 (albeit for only 36 days).

Delayed Appointments and Short Tenures: Women are frequently appointed at older ages, reducing their window for progression to Chief Justice—a stark reminder of systemic inefficiencies. Justice Nagarathna’s brief stint reflects a wider pattern of structural roadblocks that limit institutional empowerment.

Engaging the Counter-Narrative

The strongest counter-argument lies in meritocracy: appointments should focus on judicial competence, not gender. Critics argue that prioritizing inclusivity risks diluting merit. Yet this perspective ignores how entrenched biases distort a seemingly neutral meritocratic lens. NSSO data from 2023 shows that fewer women pursue higher positions in the legal profession, not because of lack of merit but due to systemic biases, lack of mentorship opportunities, and hostile work environments.

Moreover, globally successful models of gender inclusion—such as UK's Judicial Appointments Commission—reveal that equity in representation reinforces merit, rather than undermining it.

International Comparison: Lessons from Canada

Canada’s Supreme Court reflects one of the most gender-balanced judicial bodies globally, with five out of nine justices being women as of 2023. The country institutionalized gender diversity through its Judicial Appointment Committee, which mandates social representation and includes an even split between men and women. Canada’s approach underscores that merit and representation can coexist when pipelines are strengthened and bias eliminated. India's judiciary, now at an institutional crossroads, could benefit from adopting a similarly transparent, criteria-driven appointment system.

Assessment: Where Do We Go from Here?

Institutional Change: Gender inclusivity must be formalized in Supreme Court appointments through amendments to the collegium functioning or legislation similar to the UK's Equality Act, which considers diversity as part of judicial competency.

Expanding the Pool: Women advocates in High Courts should receive visibility, mentorship, and elevation opportunities directly from the Bar. Programs promoting women’s enrollment in legal education, such as the National Law Universities’ gender inclusion initiatives, need systematic scale-up.

Transparency in Collegium Deliberations: Gender diversity should feature explicitly in collegium resolutions, accompanied by robust public justifications for appointments.

The Supreme Court’s rulings on gender justice lose moral authority when the institution itself perpetuates exclusion. India faces a historic opportunity to reimagine judicial representation—not as an act of charity towards underrepresented groups but as a fundamental condition for democratic justice.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions