The Case for Women Judges’ Quota in the Supreme Court

Introduction

The Indian judiciary has long been regarded as the guardian of constitutional values and the upholder of equality, justice, and fairness. Yet, when it comes to gender representation within its own structure, particularly in the higher judiciary, the picture remains disheartening. Despite India’s constitutional promises under Articles 14, 15, and 39A, women continue to be underrepresented in the Supreme Court and High Courts. This has reignited the debate over whether a quota for women judges in the Supreme Court is necessary to ensure inclusivity, diversity, and true representation in the highest judicial forum of the country.

Present Status in India

Despite the progressive strides made in the Indian judiciary, women remain severely underrepresented at the higher levels. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court in 1950, only 11 women judges have ever been appointed, with Justice M. Fathima Beevi being the first in 1989. Currently, there are only three sitting women judges—Justice Hima Kohli, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi—out of the sanctioned strength of 34, reflecting less than 9% representation. Although Justice Nagarathna is poised to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027, the overall gender balance remains skewed. The situation is not much better in the High Courts, where out of more than 800 judges, only about 12% are women. While the lower judiciary shows relatively better inclusion, with women comprising over 30% of judges at the district level, the pipeline does not adequately translate into representation in higher courts. This glaring disparity underscores the urgency of considering structural reforms, including quotas, to ensure gender diversity in judicial appointments.

Judicial Perspectives

The judiciary itself has acknowledged the need for diversity on the bench. Former Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana emphasized in 2021 that the “absence of women judges is a blot on the institution” and called for greater representation. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, now the Chief Justice, has also highlighted that gender diversity is not just about symbolism but about “bringing different lived experiences to judicial decision-making.”
In Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India (2018), a petition was filed seeking adequate representation of women in judicial appointments. While the Court refrained from issuing binding directions, it acknowledged the systemic barriers and observed that diversity in the judiciary enriches justice delivery. Similarly, in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2003), the Court recognized the importance of gender inclusivity though it stopped short of mandating reservations.

Why a Quota is Needed?

• Constitutional Mandate of Equality: Articles 14 and 15(3) empower the state to make special provisions for women. A quota in higher judiciary would align with this principle.
• Democratic Legitimacy: Courts adjudicate on issues affecting all sections of society. A judiciary dominated by men risks appearing unrepresentative.
• Breaking Structural Barriers: Despite women performing well in the lower judiciary and legal education, their elevation to higher positions remains restricted due to patriarchal barriers, lack of visibility, and limited access to networks.
• Substantive Justice: Women judges bring different perspectives shaped by lived experiences. This ensures a more holistic interpretation of laws, particularly in matters relating to family law, sexual violence, and gender rights.

International Comparisons

Globally, many democracies have recognized the importance of gender representation in the judiciary:

• United States: Out of nine judges in the U.S. Supreme Court, currently four are women, including three liberal justices and one conservative.
• United Kingdom: The UK Supreme Court has had women judges since 2004, though their representation is still low (about 25%). Efforts are underway to encourage women from the bar to enter higher judiciary.
• Canada: Canada stands out with nearly four out of nine judges being women, including former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who served as the first woman Chief Justice for 17 years.
• South Africa: Post-apartheid reforms led to structural emphasis on inclusivity. The Constitutional Court has consistently included women, and the Judicial Service Commission ensures consideration of diversity in appointments.
• Latin America: Countries like Argentina and Mexico have seen significant growth in women’s representation on the bench due to affirmative action measures.

Compared to these jurisdictions, India’s position looks particularly bleak, given that even after 75 years of independence, it has had only 11 women in its Supreme Court.

Way Forward

• Institutional Quotas: Introducing a minimum quota (say 33%) for women in judicial appointments, at least in the higher judiciary, until parity is reached.
• Transparent Collegium Process: The collegium system has been criticized for its opacity. Ensuring transparency and diversity criteria would help correct structural imbalances.
• Mentorship and Pipeline Building: More women need to be promoted from the High Courts and encouraged to join litigation and senior advocacy to expand the pool.
• Legislative Intervention: Just as Parliament enacted the Women’s Reservation Bill for legislatures, similar intervention could ensure women’s place in the judiciary.

Conclusion

The underrepresentation of women in the Supreme Court and High Courts is not merely a question of numbers; it is a matter of constitutional morality, democratic legitimacy, and substantive justice. As the judiciary plays a vital role in shaping the social fabric of India, it must reflect the diversity of the society it serves. International experience shows that affirmative measures, whether through quotas or structured reforms, have succeeded in bridging gender gaps in other jurisdictions. For India, the time has come to move beyond tokenism and take concrete steps to guarantee women their rightful place in the judiciary. A quota for women judges in the Supreme Court is not just desirable—it is imperative for realizing the constitutional vision of equality and justice for all.

References

The Hindu,The Indian Express,The Guardian, “UK Supreme Court diversity: Women judges on the rise”, 2021, Canadian Judicial Council 2023, BBC News and more.