The Gavel Gender Gap, How India’s Judiciary is Failing Women and the Case for an All-India Judicial Service
In the grand architecture of Indian democracy, the judiciary stands as a pillar of justice, entrusted with the sacred duty of upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of every citizen. Yet, within this hallowed institution, a profound contradiction persists: the systematic under-representation of women, particularly in its highest echelons. As the recently released India Justice Report 2025 starkly highlights, women constitute a mere 14% of judges in the High Courts and an abysmal 3.1% in the Supreme Court. With only one woman among the 34 judges of the Supreme Court, the apex court risks becoming a symbol of exclusion rather than equality. This stark gender disparity is not merely a statistical anomaly; it is a fundamental flaw that undermines the legitimacy, empathy, and comprehensive wisdom of the Indian judiciary. The road to gender equity in courts is obstructed by an opaque and insular appointment system, and the path to reform may lie in a revolutionary, yet constitutionally sound, idea: the creation of an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS).
A Landscape of Exclusion: The Stark Reality of the Higher Judiciary
The numbers paint a disheartening picture. The Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional values, has never had a woman serve as Chief Justice of India, though the current sole woman judge is expected to break that barrier. The precariousness of this situation is alarming; if no other woman is appointed before her tenure ends, the Supreme Court could revert to being an all-male bench, a prospect unthinkable in the 21st century. The High Courts fare only marginally better, with just one out of 25 led by a woman Chief Justice. This “sad reality,” as termed by retired DGP Archana Ramasundaram, persists despite repeated expressions of concern from sitting judges and legal experts. The higher judiciary remains a “hollowed domain,” a citadel of male dominance resistant to change.
This exclusion has tangible consequences. A judiciary that does not reflect the society it serves risks delivering judgments that lack a nuanced understanding of the lived experiences of half its population. Cases involving sexual violence, gender discrimination, marital rights, and reproductive freedom benefit immensely from a diversity of perspectives on the bench. The absence of women at the highest levels perpetuates a legal patriarchy, where the interpretation of laws affecting women disproportionately remains largely in the hands of men.
The Root of the Problem: The Collegium System as an “Elitist Club”
The primary culprit for this gender imbalance is widely identified as the current Collegium system for appointing judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court. This system, where a closed group of the senior-most judges (the Collegium) decides on appointments, operates without statutory backing or transparent criteria. In practice, as the article argues, it functions as a highly networked “elitist club.”
Within such an informal structure, women and individuals from other underprivileged backgrounds are at a significant disadvantage. Appointments often rely on professional visibility, personal connections, and patronage networks that have historically been male-dominated. Unconscious biases about “merit,” courtroom demeanor, and the ability to handle the “pressure” of a high court can systematically disadvantage women advocates. The lack of transparency means there is no public accountability for the persistent failure to diversify the bench. The Collegium’s deliberations are secret, and its reasons for rejecting or selecting candidates are not publicly disclosed, making it impossible to challenge gender-based exclusion effectively.
The Lower Judiciary: A Beacon of Hope and a Blueprint for Reform
In stark contrast to the higher judiciary, the lower courts present a more promising picture. Here, women account for nearly 38% of the overall strength. The reason for this relative success is simple and profound: selection is conducted through competitive examinations. These standardized, anonymous tests open the doors of opportunity equally to men and women, judging candidates on their knowledge of the law and intellectual merit rather than their connections or gender.
The success of the lower judiciary proves that when the gates are opened through a fair and objective process, women not only enter but thrive. However, even this pipeline faces blockages. Promotional opportunities to the higher judiciary remain tied to the opaque Collegium system, creating a bottleneck that prevents the talented pool of women in the lower judiciary from rising to the top. Furthermore, infrastructural neglect, such as the absence of separate toilets for women in nearly 20% of district court complexes as of 2023, creates a hostile work environment that can deter women from pursuing long-term careers in the judiciary.
The Prescription: An All-India Judicial Service (AIJS)
The most compelling solution to this systemic crisis is the creation of an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS). This proposal, which has gained significant traction and was notably endorsed by President Droupadi Murmu in November 2023, envisions a system where judges for the higher judiciary are recruited through a “merit-based, competitive and transparent” national-level examination, similar to the civil services.
President Murmu rightly pointed out that such a system “can offer opportunities to the less-represented social groups also.” The AIJS would fundamentally reshape the recruitment landscape by replacing the closed-door deliberations of the Collegium with an open, uniform, and objective competitive process.
The UPSC Model: A Proven Blueprint for Diversity and Merit
The success of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in administering the Civil Services Examination serves as a powerful model for what an AIJS could achieve. The UPSC process is renowned for its rigor and impartiality. More importantly, its outcomes demonstrate a remarkable capacity to foster diversity. The 2024 results are a testament to this: of the 1,009 selected candidates, 318 were from Other Backward Classes (OBC), 160 from Scheduled Castes (SC), 87 from Scheduled Tribes (ST), and 109 from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Crucially, women are scripting history; they secured the top two ranks and constituted 11 of the top 25 candidates. In the Indian Police Service (IPS), 54 women joined in 2024, making up 28% of the new cadre. This is the transformative potential that a standardized, national exam holds for the judiciary.
Addressing the Counterarguments: Autonomy vs. Accountability
The primary resistance to the AIJS comes from the judiciary and the Bar, who argue that it would lead to executive interference and dilute judicial independence. However, this argument, as the article contends, is “not convincing.” The lower judiciary is already recruited through competitive exams conducted by state public service commissions, and there is no evidence of this compromising its functional independence from the executive. The key is in the design.
The proposed AIJS can be structured to allay these fears. As per Article 312 of the Constitution, Parliament can create the service, but operational control can remain with the judiciary. The examination could be conducted by the UPSC to ensure impartiality, but the syllabus, eligibility criteria, and final selection could be determined by a body dominated by Supreme Court and High Court judges. Those selected would then work under the control of the respective High Courts and the Supreme Court, preserving the chain of command and judicial autonomy. This model separates the administrative process of recruitment from the substantive control over judges, safeguarding independence while injecting transparency.
The Way Forward: A Judicial System for the People, by a Representative People
The famous words of former French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, “War is too important a matter to be left to generals,” ring true in this context. Similarly, justice is too serious a matter to be left entirely to an insular judiciary. The citizens of India have a profound stake in ensuring that their courts are fair, representative, and legitimate.
The creation of an All-India Judicial Service is not a panacea, but it is the most viable and transformative step towards correcting a historical wrong. It would replace opacity with transparency, patronage with merit, and exclusion with inclusion. By opening the doors of the higher judiciary to the vast talent pool of women and marginalized communities currently locked out by the Collegium system, India can build a judiciary that truly reflects the spirit of its Constitution—one that secures justice, social, economic, and political, for all its citizens. The time for this long-overdue reform is now.
Q&A: The Gender Gap in India’s Judiciary and the AIJS Solution
1. What is the current state of gender representation in India’s higher judiciary?
The representation is critically low. According to the India Justice Report 2025, women make up only 14% of High Court judges and a mere 3.1% of Supreme Court judges. Currently, there is only one woman judge in the 34-member Supreme Court, and only one of the 25 High Courts has a woman Chief Justice. This stark under-representation undermines the judiciary’s legitimacy and its ability to deliver balanced judgments on issues affecting women.
2. Why is the lower judiciary more gender-balanced than the Supreme Court and High Courts?
The key difference lies in the appointment process. Judges for the lower judiciary are selected through competitive examinations conducted by state public service commissions. This objective, merit-based process provides an equal opportunity for men and women, resulting in women constituting nearly 38% of the lower judiciary. In contrast, appointments to the higher courts are made by the opaque Collegium system, which lacks transparency and is susceptible to unconscious biases.
3. What is the Collegium system, and how does it contribute to gender disparity?
The Collegium system is a judge-led appointment mechanism where a small group of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court (the Collegium) decides on appointments to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. It operates without transparent criteria or public accountability. Critics describe it as an “elitist club” where appointments often rely on professional networks and patronage that are historically male-dominated, systematically disadvantaging women and other under-represented groups.
4. What is the All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) proposal?
The AIJS is a proposed reform to recruit judges for the higher judiciary through a national-level, competitive examination, similar to the UPSC Civil Services exam. The goal is to create a “merit-based, competitive and transparent” system that would open up opportunities for women and marginalized social groups, breaking the stranglehold of the opaque Collegium system.
5. How can the AIJS be implemented without compromising judicial independence?
Concerns about executive interference can be mitigated through a carefully designed structure. While the AIJS would be created by Parliament under Article 312, the operational control can remain with the judiciary. For instance, the UPSC could conduct the exam to ensure impartiality, but the Supreme Court, in consultation with High Courts, could set the syllabus, eligibility, and final selection criteria. The selected judges would then work under the control of the High Courts and Supreme Court, preserving judicial autonomy while ensuring a fair and inclusive recruitment process.
