Women in Indian Judiciary

Women in Indian Judiciary

Context

Senior Advocate V. Mohana was elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court of India. This historic appointment makes her only the second woman in Indian legal history to achieve this direct elevation, following Justice Indu Malhotra. The development has brought renewed national focus onto the persistent structural barriers and underrepresentation of women within the higher tiers of the Indian justice system.

Women’s Representation Status

Higher Judiciary

• Supreme Court: Out of a total sanctioned strength of up to 34 judges (and 37 appointments over recent cycles), there are currently only 2 sitting women judges. Historically, only 12 women have ever been appointed to the apex court, accounting for a mere ~4.2% of all historic appointments. No woman has yet served as the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

Historical Milestone: Justice Fathima Beevi was the first woman judge appointed to the Supreme Court of India in 1989.

• High Courts: Representation remains highly skewed, with women comprising only 13% to 14% of the active bench across the 25 High Courts in India.

Lower Judiciary

• Subordinate Courts: Representation is significantly higher at 35% to 38% in the lower judiciary. This variance is largely driven by structured entry-level Judicial Services Examinations and the implementation of state-level horizontal reservation policies for women.

Significance of Women in the Judiciary

• Jurisprudential Diversity: Women judges bring critical, lived-experience diversity to the bench. This alters the structural approach to adjudication, especially in sensitive cases involving domestic violence, family law, and sexual offenses.
• Constitutional Inclusivity: Ensuring equitable women's representation in the higher judiciary directly fulfills the mandates of Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex) of the Constitution of India.
• Public Trust: A gender-diverse bench actively dismantles the perception of an insular, elitist legal system. This strengthens public confidence and positions the judiciary as an equitable, democratic institution.
• Inspirational Precedent: Visible female leadership at the highest appellate levels acts as a crucial career catalyst. It inspires younger female practitioners and gradually disrupts deeply entrenched professional biases.

Major Reasons for Low Representation

Appointment Opacity

The Supreme Court Collegium System operates without institutionalized gender-diversity criteria. Its lack of transparency often favors long-established, male-dominated professional legal networks, narrowing the entry point for women candidates.

Seniority and Practice Constraints

• The Seven-Year Rule: Under Article 233, a candidate must complete a minimum of 7 years of continuous practice as an advocate to qualify for direct recruitment as a District Judge. This window frequently overlaps with critical childbearing and early caregiving years, leading to forced career breaks.
• Bar Elevation Deficit: The historic scarcity of women designated as "Senior Advocates" by High Courts and the Supreme Court heavily reduces the pool of women eligible for direct elevation from the Bar.

Infrastructure Gaps

The basic physical workspace in lower courts remains highly exclusionary. Approximately 22% of lower court complexes lack separate functional toilets for women. Furthermore, support infrastructure like creches, daycare facilities, and clean feeding rooms are virtually non-existent in most districts.

Socio-Professional Patriarchal Bias

Deep-seated client preferences for male litigators, professional isolation within bar associations, and a lack of workplace safety mechanisms collectively stall the career progression of female trial court attorneys.

Key Reform Measures

Institutional Appraisals and Pipelines

• Objective Merit Assessment: Move away from opaque consultation models toward a structured, point-based appraisal framework. This can be modeled after the UK Judicial Appointments Commission, which weights disposal rates, judgment quality, and legal acumen objectively.
• Talent-Mapping: Institutionalize systematic High Court talent-mapping to identify and mentor high-performing women district judges and senior trial attorneys early, securing a consistent pipeline for future elevations.

Structural and Budgetary Reallocation

• Horizontal Reservations: Expand and uniformize state policies to target 30% to 50% reservation for women in the lower judiciary, scaling successful frameworks already used in states like Telangana, Goa, and Kerala.
• Gender-Responsive Budgeting: Deploy ring-fenced central grants via the Department of Justice to build gender-sensitive court facilities. This includes mandatory on-site childcare centers and secure residential quarters for women judicial officers in remote districts.
• Mentorship Networks: Task the National Judicial Academy (NJA) and State Judicial Academies with pairing junior female judicial officers with senior judges to provide career guidance and systematically reduce early career attrition.

Conclusion

The elevation of Senior Advocate V. Mohana highlights the potential of Indian women at the Bar, but it also underscores how rare such breakthroughs remain. Achieving a gender-balanced judiciary is not a policy preference—it is a constitutional necessity. Transitioning from discretionary appointments to a transparent, infrastructure-supported framework is vital to ensure that the Indian bench truly reflects the society it is sworn to protect.