The Need for Diversity in the Judiciary

Source: TH

Subject: Polity

Context: Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson has introduced a private member’s Bill, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026, seeking to mandate social diversity in the higher judiciary and establish regional benches of the Supreme Court to ensure equitable access to justice.

About The Need for Diversity in the Judiciary:

What it is?

• Judicial diversity refers to the representation of various social, gender, and regional groups within the court system. It ensures that the bench reflects the diverse fabric of Indian society, thereby enhancing the legitimacy and inclusivity of judicial interpretations.

Key Data/Facts on the Indian Judiciary:

• Caste Representation: Between 2018 and 2024, approximately 78% of judges appointed to High Courts belonged to upper castes, while SCs and STs accounted for only about 5% each.

• Gender Gap: As of August 2024, women constitute only 14% of High Court judges; currently, there is only one sitting woman judge in the Supreme Court (Justice B.V. Nagarathna).

• Minority Representation: Religious minorities account for less than 5% of the judges appointed to the higher judiciary in the last six years.

• Pendency Crisis: As of January 2026, the Supreme Court has over 90,000 pending cases, with a significant portion being appellate matters from High Courts geographically close to Delhi.

• Vacancies: High Courts continue to struggle with a nearly 33% vacancy rate, affecting the speed of justice delivery.

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 124: Governs the appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President in consultation with the CJI.

• Article 217: Outlines the appointment process for High Court judges.

• Article 130: Allows the Chief Justice of India, with Presidential approval, to appoint other places as seats for the Supreme Court—providing the legal basis for regional benches.

Need for Diversity in Judiciary:

• Enhanced Public Trust: A diverse judiciary strengthens legitimacy because citizens feel the institution reflects India’s social reality and constitutional promise of representation.

E.g. The positive response to Justice B.R. Gavai’s elevation showed how representation of marginalized communities improves faith in judicial fairness and inclusiveness.

• Inclusivity in Interpretation: Judges’ lived experiences influence interpretation of rights, helping courts understand social contexts behind legal disputes more effectively.

E.g. Women judges often bring greater sensitivity in gender-related cases, reflected in the Supreme Court’s emphasis on gender-sensitization in marital and domestic violence matters.

• Correcting Historical Under-representation: Diversity helps address historical exclusion of certain groups and ensures equal opportunity in higher judicial appointments.

E.g. India not having a woman Chief Justice for over seven decades highlights systemic barriers that diversity-oriented reforms seek to overcome.

• Democratization of the Bar: Representation at higher levels motivates aspiring lawyers from diverse backgrounds to pursue litigation and judicial careers.

E.g. The Supreme Court Bar Association’s push for one-third women representation aims to create visible role models and broaden participation in legal practice.

• Advancing Social Justice: A diverse bench aligns judicial functioning with constitutional goals of equality and social justice by reflecting varied social realities.

E.g. The P. Wilson Bill argues that without diversity, backward communities remain underrepresented in decision-making spaces of justice delivery.

Challenges Associated with Diversity:

• Opaque Collegium System: Lack of transparency in appointments may unintentionally perpetuate elite networks and limit opportunities for marginalized candidates.

E.g. Delays or rejections of women candidates since 2020 without clear reasons indicate how opacity affects diversity outcomes.

• “Old Boys’ Club” Mentality: Informal professional networks and patriarchal norms often favour established male circles, restricting advancement for others.

E.g. Women lawyers frequently face higher scrutiny and career interruptions, creating a funnel effect where fewer reach senior positions.

• Lack of Formal Reservation: Absence of constitutional quotas in higher judiciary means diversity depends largely on discretion rather than structured inclusion.

E.g. Even where lower judiciary follows caste reservations, similar representation fails to carry forward into High Courts due to no mandate.

• Geographical Barriers: Centralisation of legal practice around Delhi limits access for lawyers from distant regions, reducing regional diversity in elevations.

E.g. High litigation costs prevent many lawyers from states like Tamil Nadu or the Northeast from building Supreme Court visibility.

• Structural Barriers for Women: Inadequate workplace infrastructure and support systems discourage sustained participation of women in long legal careers.

E.g. Reports showing lack of separate washrooms in many district courts highlight practical challenges that hinder women’s retention in the profession.

Way Ahead

• Reviving the NJAC: Re-introduce a transparent body with representatives from the executive and civil society, balanced by judicial independence.

• Establishing Regional Benches: Set up permanent SC benches in Chennai, Mumbai, and Kolkata to decentralize justice and reduce travel costs for the poor.

• Institutionalizing Diversity Metrics: Include demographic diversity as a formal criterion in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointments.

• Time-bound Appointments: Mandate the government to clear Collegium names within 90 days to prevent pocket vetoes of diverse candidates.

• Mentorship Programs: Create formal pipelines to mentor first-generation and marginalized lawyers for future judicial roles.

Conclusion

The pursuit of a diverse judiciary is not about compromising merit, but about enriching it with the collective wisdom of a billion people. By implementing the reforms suggested in the P. Wilson Bill and addressing structural biases, India can transform its courts into truly inclusive institutions. Ultimately, a judge who understands the social context of the litigant is a stronger guardian of the Constitution.

Q. Assess how performance evaluation of judges can contribute to improving judicial efficiency in India. Discuss limitations of disposal-rate based metrics. Propose holistic benchmarks aligned with constitutional values of justice. (15 M)