Context

• The Supreme Court of India, as the highest judicial authority in the country, carries not only the responsibility of interpreting constitutional provisions but also of embodying the principles of equality and inclusion enshrined in the Constitution.
• However, its own institutional history reveals a striking underrepresentation of women.
• The retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in August 2025 and the subsequent appointments of Justices Vipul Pancholi and Alok Aradhe, without the inclusion of a woman, has once again drawn attention to the persistent gender imbalance in the Court.
• At present, Justice B.V. Nagarathna is the only woman among a full strength of 34 judges, raising critical questions about the process and criteria of judicial appointments.

Historical Trends in Women’s Representation

• Since its establishment in 1950, the Supreme Court has had only eleven women judges, constituting roughly 3.8% of the 287 judges appointed to date.
• This small proportion highlights the slow pace of gender inclusion. The appointment of Justice Fathima Beevi in 1989 was a landmark moment, but subsequent progress has been limited.
• The Collegium decision in August 2021, which elevated three women judges simultaneously, briefly increased women’s representation above 10%.
• This was unprecedented, but the momentum was not sustained, and subsequent appointments reverted to established patterns of exclusion.
• The demographic profile of these eleven judges also reveals further gaps. No woman judge has ever been appointed from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, and only Justice Fathima Beevi has represented a religious minority.
• Moreover, the pathway of direct elevation from the Bar, often regarded as an important route into the higher judiciary, has overwhelmingly benefited men.
• While nine male lawyers have been appointed directly to the Supreme Court since 1950, only one woman, Justice Indu Malhotra, has achieved this distinction.

Structural Barriers to Advancement

• Another notable trend is the relatively late age at which women judges are appointed to the Court. This restricts their tenure and limits their ability to attain seniority.
• For example, several women judges have served for fewer than three years, diminishing their influence in the Court’s institutional processes.
• This has also affected their opportunities to participate in the Collegium, which plays a decisive role in appointments.
• Justice Nagarathna is expected to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027, but her term will last only 36 days, an appointment more symbolic than substantive in institutional impact.
• These patterns suggest that structural barriers, rather than individual merit, have constrained women’s advancement.
• The absence of systematic efforts to address these barriers perpetuates a cycle of underrepresentation.

The Collegium System and Gender Blindness

• The process of judicial appointments through the Collegium system has long been criticised for its opacity.
• While the Memorandum of Procedure outlines the broad framework, where the Chief Justice of India, in consultation with the four senior-most judges, makes recommendations that are forwarded to the executive, the actual criteria guiding selection remain unspecified.
• Although caste, religion, and regional representation are occasionally cited, gender has not been institutionalised as a factor.
• Attempts at transparency have been inconsistent. During the tenure of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Collegium resolutions with stated reasons were made public, but this practice has not been consistently followed by his successors.
• The absence of clarity creates a system in which gender considerations remain at the margins, dependent on the priorities of individual decision-makers rather than embedded within institutional policy.

Implications for Judicial Diversity

• The limited representation of women in the Supreme Court has implications beyond numbers. Judges inevitably bring their personal and professional experiences into judicial reasoning.
• Women judges, by virtue of their perspectives, may highlight issues that might otherwise be overlooked, particularly in cases concerning gender justice, family law, or social policy.
• However, the underrepresentation of women constrains the diversity of viewpoints that can enrich judicial deliberations.
• Moreover, the absence of women from leadership positions, such as the Collegium or the Chief Justiceship, weakens the ability of the judiciary to present itself as fully representative of Indian society.
• While the Court has advanced progressive jurisprudence on gender equality in various judgments, its own institutional practices lag behind its pronouncements.

Conclusion

• The analysis of women’s representation in the Supreme Court of India reveals structural and procedural gaps that perpetuate gender imbalance.
• The issue is not simply about fairness to women candidates but about the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary itself.
• A representative bench, inclusive of women from varied backgrounds, would strengthen public confidence in the judiciary and ensure a broader range of perspectives in judicial decision-making.
• Without systemic reforms to address these structural barriers, the Supreme Court’s commitment to gender equality risks remaining more rhetorical than real.