Women judges in SC, HCs: Former CJI Ramana says Centre lacks will to promote gender parity in constitutional courts

The Clarion Call for Gender Parity: Justice NV Ramana’s Critique of the Indian Judiciary

As a Senior Advocate with decades of practice in the corridors of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, I have observed the slow, often painful, evolution of our judicial institutions. The recent remarks by the former Chief Justice of India (CJI), NV Ramana, regarding the lack of “government will” to promote gender parity in constitutional courts, resonate deeply within the legal fraternity. Justice Ramana’s candid observation strikes at the heart of a systemic malaise that has long plagued the upper echelons of the Indian judiciary.

While the Indian Constitution promises equality before the law, the composition of the benches that interpret these laws often fails to reflect the diversity of the population they serve. Justice Ramana’s critique points to a significant disconnect: while women are entering the lower judiciary in record numbers, they are conspicuously absent from the High Courts and the Supreme Court. This article explores the nuances of this disparity, the institutional barriers involved, and the urgent need for a transformative shift in how we appoint our judges.

The Paradox of Representation: Trial Courts vs. Constitutional Courts

One of the most striking points raised by the former CJI is the 40% representation of women in trial courts. This figure is a testament to the changing face of legal education and the increasing number of women appearing for and clearing the judicial services examinations. It signals that at the entry-level, merit is overcoming traditional barriers. However, as we ascend the judicial pyramid, the percentage of women drops precipitously.

The Statistical Gap in High Courts and the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court of India, since its inception in 1950, the number of women judges can be counted on one’s fingers. For decades, the highest court in the land remained an all-male bastion. Even today, the representation remains far below the 33% or 50% benchmarks often discussed in legislative circles. The High Courts present a similarly bleak picture, with several courts across the country having zero or negligible female representation on the bench.

This “leaky pipeline” suggests that the criteria for elevation to the constitutional courts—which rely on the Collegium system rather than competitive examinations—may be inadvertently or intentionally biased. When 40% of the lower judiciary is female, the lack of representation at the top cannot be dismissed as a “lack of eligible candidates.”

Analyzing the ‘Lack of Will’ within the Executive

Justice Ramana specifically pointed towards the Central Government, suggesting a lack of political and administrative will to bridge this gender gap. In the Indian judicial appointment process, the Collegium (comprising the CJI and senior-most judges) recommends names, but the Executive holds the power of clearance and appointment. Historically, the “will” to diversify the bench has often taken a backseat to other political or seniority-based considerations.

The Power of the Signature: Why the Centre Matters

The Executive’s role is not merely clerical. By delaying files or returning recommendations, the government can effectively stifle the diversity initiatives proposed by the judiciary. Justice Ramana’s assertion implies that even when the judiciary shows an inclination to nominate women, the administrative hurdles and the lack of a proactive policy from the Ministry of Law and Justice act as deterrents. Without a concerted effort from the Centre to prioritize gender-diverse recommendations, the status quo remains unchallenged.

The Glass Ceiling in the Legal Profession: Socio-Legal Barriers

To understand why women are missing from the constitutional courts, we must look beyond the appointment process and examine the life of a woman in the legal profession. As a Senior Advocate, I have seen brilliant young women join the Bar, only to drop out or be sidelined due to structural challenges.

The Patriarchal Nature of the “Old Boys’ Club”

The litigation landscape in India is often described as an “old boys’ club.” Networking, mentorship, and the distribution of high-stakes briefs frequently happen in circles that are traditionally male-dominated. Women lawyers often face subtle biases, where they are seen as less capable of handling “tough” criminal or commercial matters. This bias affects their visibility and, consequently, their chances of being considered for elevation from the Bar to the Bench.

Infrastructure and Work-Life Balance

The lack of basic infrastructure, such as creches and proper washrooms in many court complexes, makes the profession inherently hostile to women. Furthermore, the grueling hours of litigation often clash with societal expectations of domestic responsibilities. Until the legal ecosystem becomes more supportive of the work-life balance required by all genders, the pool of senior women advocates eligible for elevation will remain smaller than it should be.

The Collegium System: Does the Judiciary Share the Blame?

While Justice Ramana highlighted the government’s lack of will, it is imperative to ask whether the judiciary’s own selection mechanism—the Collegium—is sufficiently sensitized to gender issues. The Collegium system has often been criticized for its “opacity.”

The Merit vs. Diversity Debate

A common counter-argument to gender parity is the insistence on “merit.” However, as many legal scholars argue, merit is not gendered. The current definition of merit often favors those who have had the privilege of continuous practice without the interruptions that societal roles impose on women. If the Collegium does not actively seek out qualified women and instead waits for them to “emerge” in a biased system, it indirectly perpetuates the gender gap. Justice Ramana’s comments serve as a reminder that both the Judiciary and the Executive must move from passive acceptance to active recruitment.

Why Gender Diversity in the Bench is a Constitutional Necessity

Gender parity in the judiciary is not just about “fairness” to women; it is about the quality of justice itself. A diverse bench brings a plurality of perspectives to the interpretation of law, which is essential for a vibrant democracy.

Broadening Judicial Perspective

Women judges bring lived experiences that are often different from their male counterparts, particularly in cases involving family law, gender-based violence, and reproductive rights. A bench that reflects the citizenry is more likely to command public trust and ensure that the law is interpreted through a lens that accounts for the realities of all sections of society.

The Symbolism of Representation

When a young girl looks at the Supreme Court and sees women in the highest seats of power, it alters her perception of what is possible. Representation acts as a catalyst for future generations. Justice Ramana’s call for parity is, therefore, a call to inspire and secure the future of the Indian legal system.

Constitutional Imperatives and International Standards

Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the Indian Constitution are not mere suggestions; they are mandates. The state is empowered to make “special provisions for women and children” under Article 15(3). This constitutional backing provides a solid foundation for implementing policies that ensure gender parity in judicial appointments.

Global Trends in Judicial Diversity

Internationally, there is a growing movement toward gender-balanced judiciaries. Countries like the United Kingdom and various European nations have established judicial appointment commissions that specifically track and encourage diversity. India, as the world’s largest democracy, risks falling behind if its highest courts do not evolve to reflect modern societal values.

The Way Forward: Towards a More Inclusive Judiciary

The critique by former CJI Ramana should serve as a roadmap for reform. Addressing the lack of will requires a multi-pronged approach involving legislative, judicial, and administrative actions.

1. Institutionalizing Diversity in Appointments

There is a strong case for formalizing diversity as a criterion for judicial appointments. Whether through a memorandum of procedure or a more transparent Collegium process, the goal of achieving at least 33% female representation in every High Court should be explicitly stated and pursued.

2. Support Systems for Women at the Bar

The Bar Councils and the judiciary must work together to create a more inclusive environment. This includes mandatory gender sensitization for all advocates and judges, the establishment of creches in every court complex, and proactive mentorship programs for women lawyers.

3. Data-Driven Accountability

The government should maintain and publish annual data on the gender composition of all courts. Transparency in the number of women recommended by the Collegium versus the number of women cleared by the Centre would help identify where exactly the “lack of will” manifests, ensuring greater accountability.

4. Reimagining the ‘Merit’ Narrative

We must redefine merit to include “diversity of experience.” A judge who has navigated the challenges of the legal profession as a woman and demonstrated excellence despite systemic hurdles possesses a unique form of merit that is invaluable to the constitutional bench.

Conclusion: Justice Must Not Only Be Done, But Must Be Seen to Be Equal

The remarks of Justice NV Ramana are a sobering reminder that the journey toward gender justice in India is far from over. When the highest judicial officer of the country points out a lack of will in the government, it signifies a deep-seated institutional friction that prevents progress. However, this critique is also an opportunity.

As members of the legal fraternity, we must support the call for “horizontal and vertical” gender parity. The trial courts have shown that women are ready and capable. It is now the responsibility of the High Courts, the Supreme Court, and the Union Government to ensure that the glass ceiling is not just cracked, but completely dismantled. Only then can we say that our constitutional courts truly embody the spirit of the preamble—securing justice, liberty, and equality for all its citizens, regardless of gender.

The time for incremental change has passed; the time for a “willful” transformation is here. We must move beyond rhetoric and ensure that the benches of our constitutional courts reflect the diverse reality of the Indian people they serve. As Justice Ramana aptly suggested, gender parity is not a matter of charity, but a matter of right.