The Need for Diversity in the Judiciary, A Private Member Bill and the Way Forward
P. Wilson, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, has introduced a private member Bill to amend the Constitution in order to bring diversity in judicial appointments and set up regional benches of the Supreme Court. The Bill touches on two long-standing issues in India’s judicial system: the lack of representational diversity in the higher judiciary, and the geographical inaccessibility of the Supreme Court for millions of citizens.
Both issues have been the subject of debate for decades. The Bill brings them back into focus at a time when the composition of the judiciary and its functioning are under increasing scrutiny.
The Constitutional Framework
Article 124 of the Constitution provides that judges of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India. Similarly, Article 217 provides that judges of a High Court shall be appointed by the President after consulting the CJI, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and the Governor of the State.
Article 130 of the Constitution provides that the seat of the Supreme Court shall be in Delhi or such other place(s) as appointed by the CJI with the approval of the central government. This provision explicitly contemplates the possibility of multiple benches across the country, but it has never been fully utilised.
The Evolution of the Collegium System
As per the process laid down in the Constitution, judges were appointed by the government after consultation with the judiciary until the 1980s. In the First Judges case (1981), the Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the executive in judicial appointments since it is accountable to the people.
However, considering the need to maintain the independence of the judiciary and insulate it from political favouritism, the Supreme Court in the Second Judges case (1993) created the collegium system for the appointment of judges. This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Third Judges case (1998).
The collegium consists of the CJI with four senior judges of the Supreme Court for appointments to the Supreme Court, and the CJI with two senior judges for appointment to the High Courts. The collegium initiates the proposal for appointment of judges to the higher judiciary and sends the recommendation to the central government. The Centre may return a recommendation in case of any objection. However, if the collegium reiterates the recommendation, the appointment should be made.
The collegium system has ensured the independence of the judiciary from the executive in the matter of appointments. Nevertheless, it has its own drawbacks like lack of transparency and accountability. There is also resentment on account of alleged nepotism in this process whereby relatives of sitting judges are favoured for appointments to higher judiciary.
The NJAC Intervention and Its Failure
Parliament through the 99th Constitutional Amendment in 2014 had set up the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to provide recommendations to the executive for appointment of judges. The NJAC was to consist of the CJI, two senior judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons.
This was, however, struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 as it violated the basic structure of the independence of the judiciary. Hence, the collegium process continues till date for appointments.
The NJAC episode illustrates the deep tension between the executive and judiciary over control of appointments. The executive argued that a body with broader representation would be more democratic and accountable. The judiciary countered that any involvement of the executive in appointments would compromise its independence. The Supreme Court’s verdict left the collegium system intact but did nothing to address its deficiencies.
The Diversity Deficit
The collegium process lays emphasis on merit in the selection of judges. However, it does not reflect the social diversity of our country. For instance, out of the judges appointed to higher judiciary between 2018 and 2024, only around 20% belonged to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The proportion of women and religious minorities is less than 15% and 5% respectively.
These numbers are striking when contrasted with the population. SCs and STs together constitute about 25% of India’s population. OBCs are estimated to be over 40%. Women are half the population. Religious minorities are nearly 15%. The higher judiciary, by these measures, is overwhelmingly drawn from a narrow social base.
This lack of diversity has consequences. A judiciary that does not reflect the society it serves may lack the lived experience and perspective needed to understand the full implications of its decisions. It may also suffer from a legitimacy deficit, as groups that are underrepresented may feel that the institution does not speak for them.
The Provisions of the Bill
The Bill introduced by the private member mandates that due representation should be given to SC, ST, OBC, religious minorities, and women in proportion to their population while appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. It also sets a maximum timeline of 90 days for the central government to notify the recommendations of the collegium.
The population-based quota is a bold proposal. It would fundamentally alter the composition of the judiciary and require a complete overhaul of the appointment process. Whether such quotas are constitutionally feasible and practically implementable is a separate question, but the Bill puts the issue on the table for debate.
Considering that the Supreme Court only sits in Delhi, access to the highest court for common citizens remains a challenge. There are also more than 90,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court as of January 2026. In order to address these issues, the Bill requires setting up of regional benches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai. These regional benches shall exercise full jurisdiction of the Supreme Court except over cases of constitutional importance to be heard by the main Constitution bench in Delhi.
The Way Forward
The onus for ensuring social diversity in the appointment of judges primarily falls on the judiciary through the collegium process. The private member Bill is relevant as it would create a constitutional directive to achieve the desired objective. Even if the Bill does not become law, it serves to highlight an issue that deserves serious attention.
The long-term reform could be to revive the NJAC by broad basing its composition. It can include representatives from the legislature, the bar council, and academia, like in South Africa and the UK. This would make the consultation broad-based and inclusive. Suitable representation for SC, ST, OBC, minorities, and women should be ensured through this process.
As recommended by parliamentary committees and the Law Commission in the past, regional benches of the Supreme Court can be set up under existing provisions of the Constitution itself. The Court may even consider setting up a bench in one region initially and extend to other regions in a time-bound manner.
Conclusion: Two Reforms Whose Time Has Come
The issues raised by the Bill—diversity in judicial appointments and regional benches of the Supreme Court—are not new. They have been discussed in various forums for decades. What is new is the political will to bring them into legislative focus.
Diversity is not just about representation for its own sake. It is about ensuring that the judiciary draws on the full range of talent and experience that Indian society has to offer. It is about building trust in the institution among all communities. And it is about enriching judicial decision-making with diverse perspectives.
Regional benches are about access—the simple principle that justice should not require a journey to Delhi. For a citizen in Tamil Nadu or West Bengal, the Supreme Court might as well be on another planet. Bringing the Court closer to the people would reduce costs, speed up justice, and make the highest court more accessible.
Neither reform is easy. Both face constitutional, practical, and political hurdles. But the Bill opens a conversation that is long overdue. The question now is whether that conversation will lead to action.
Q&A: Unpacking the Judicial Diversity Bill
Q1: What is the collegium system, and how does it work?
The collegium system was created by the Supreme Court through the Second Judges case (1993) and reaffirmed in the Third Judges case (1998). For Supreme Court appointments, the collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and four senior judges. For High Court appointments, it consists of the CJI and two senior judges. The collegium initiates proposals for judicial appointments and sends recommendations to the central government. The government may return a recommendation with objections, but if the collegium reiterates it, the appointment must be made.
Q2: What was the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), and why was it struck down?
The NJAC was established through the 99th Constitutional Amendment in 2014 to replace the collegium system. It was to consist of the CJI, two senior judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons. The Supreme Court struck it down in 2015, holding that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining the independence of the judiciary. The NJAC episode reflects the ongoing tension between executive and judiciary over control of judicial appointments.
Q3: What does the data show about diversity in higher judicial appointments?
Between 2018 and 2024, only around 20% of judges appointed to higher judiciary belonged to SC, ST, and OBC categories. The proportion of women was less than 15%, and religious minorities less than 5%. This contrasts sharply with population figures: SC/ST together constitute about 25%, OBCs over 40%, women 50%, and religious minorities nearly 15%. The higher judiciary is overwhelmingly drawn from a narrow social base, raising concerns about representation and legitimacy.
Q4: What are the key provisions of the private member Bill introduced by P. Wilson?
The Bill has two main components. First, it mandates that due representation be given to SC, ST, OBC, religious minorities, and women in proportion to their population in appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts. Second, it requires setting up regional benches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai, which would exercise full jurisdiction except over constitutional cases reserved for the main bench in Delhi. It also sets a 90-day timeline for the government to notify collegium recommendations.
Q5: What is the way forward for judicial diversity and regional benches?
The onus for diversity primarily falls on the judiciary through the collegium process, but a constitutional directive could help achieve the objective. Long-term reform could revive the NJAC with broader composition including legislature, bar council, and academia representatives, as in South Africa and the UK. For regional benches, they can be set up under existing constitutional provisions (Article 130) without legislation, starting with one region and expanding in a time-bound manner as recommended by parliamentary committees and the Law Commission.
