
Women in judiciary: A mountain to climb
— Rituparna Patgiri
(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Rituparna Patgiri discusses the significance of gender diversity in judiciary.)
Justice Leila Seth was sitting in the Delhi High Court one day when she heard some shuffling of feet and the soft murmur of many voices. She enquired from her reader whether any specially newsworthy case had suddenly been assigned to her. He replied: 'Oh no, no. This crowd is a group of farmers whom Prime Minister Charan Singh has invited to Delhi to see the sights. They have just visited the zoo: and now they have come to see the woman judge in the Delhi High Court.'
Justice Leila Seth – the first woman Chief Justice of a state High Court (Himachal Pradesh) – recalls this incident from 1978 in her autobiography, On Balance. The curiosity to 'see' what a woman judge 'looked like' highlights how unusual it was to see a woman in such a position of judicial authority. Four decades later, India has yet to see a woman Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while the number of women judges in the apex court has also been very low.
Since its establishment in 1950, the Supreme Court has had only 11 women judges. The first woman judge of the Supreme Court, Justice M. Fathima Beevi, was appointed in 1989 – 39 years after the court came into being. At present, there are only two women judges – Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice B. V. Nagarathna – out of the total 33, including the Chief Justice.
Justice Trivedi is retiring on June 9, but Friday (May 16, 2025) marked her last working day. However, her retirement took an unexpected turn as the Supreme Court Bar Association didn't hold the traditional official farewell ceremony for her. Notably, after Justice Trivedi's retirement, the number of women judges would be reduced to only one.
The situation is not much better even in the High Courts and the lower courts. According to the data from the Supreme Court Observer (2021), only 11.7% of judges in High Courts are women. Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Patna and Uttarakhand High Courts have no women judges. In the lower courts, women judges only account for 35%. These figures underline that gender imbalance exists across all levels of the judicial system.
Moreover, viewed through an inter-sectional lens, the picture appears more troubling. In the last 75 years, there has been no Dalit or tribal woman judge in the Supreme Court. Justice M. Fathima Beevi has been the first – and so far, the only – Muslim woman judge of the Supreme Court.
Currently, there are no women in the Supreme Court collegium – a system for the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Though it is not a Constitutional provision, the collegium system has evolved through judgments of the Supreme Court itself. It consists of the Chief Justice of India and four senior judges from the apex court. Only two women judges — Justice Ruma Pal and Justice R. Banumathi — have been a part of the collegium.
Adequate representation of women in the Supreme Court collegium would perhaps help increase the number of women judges. A 2025 report by the Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR), Bengaluru, found that women judges in the Supreme Court serve one year less than their men counterparts on average. This shorter tenure affected their chances of rising to the senior positions, and subsequently, to the collegium.
For instance, Justice B. V. Nagarathna is poised to become the first woman Chief Justice of India. But her tenure will only last for 36 days.
The lack of gender diversity and women's under-representation in the judiciary often lead to judgments that reinforce existing patriarchal biases. It is visible in some of the recent judgments from the Allahabad High Court. For instance, on March 11, 2025, the Allahabad High Court granted bail in an alleged rape case and said that the woman had 'herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same'. Similarly, on March 17, 2025, the court passed an order, involving a minor and two men, and said that grabbing breasts and breaking the strings of the girl's pyjamas were not sufficient to hold the charges of rape or attempt to rape.
The Supreme Court had to intervene in both of these cases. These judgments have been criticised as 'insensitive' and 'inhuman'. Justice Bela Trivedi's remark that 'we should empower women through law, not sympathy' is particularly relevant here. Such judgements perhaps need to be seen in relation to the women's presence in the judiciary.
In August 2022, the district and sessions judge at Kozhikode, cited the 'revealing and provocative dress' of the complainant as a valid ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused in a molestation case. Again in 2022, the Bombay High Court ruled that the accused is a young boy and he was 'smitten by infatuation' while granting bail in the rape case of a minor. Judgments like these not only reinforce patriarchal beliefs but also deny justice to the victims and survivors.
Therefore, it may be argued that appointments of women to the judiciary at all levels need to be normalised. Women need to have space to work as individuals – rather than being seen as symbolic representatives or torchbearers for all women. At the same time, it is also important that women judges are not confined to adjudicating only on women's issues.
Spending efforts towards gender sensitisation and enhancing accountability could be a step in the right direction. Some states like Jharkhand, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Telangana and Bihar have reservations for women. But these measures seem insufficient. In addition to affirmative actions, some infrastructural improvements — such as better sanitation and toilet facilities, particularly in lower courts — would be crucial in encouraging more women to enter the judiciary.
Moreover, regular surveys that take account of women's intersectional representation in the judiciary may also be conducted. Such data will be critical in addressing women's under-representation in the judiciary. Lastly, normalising women's participation in the judiciary is important for a more inclusive and representative legal system.
Why is the under-representation of women in the Supreme Court and the judiciary considered problematic for gender justice in India?
The lack of gender diversity and women's under-representation in the judiciary often lead to judgments that reinforce existing patriarchal biases. Evaluate.
Justice Bela Trivedi said that 'we should empower women through law, not sympathy'. Comment.
What role do infrastructure and basic facilities in lower courts play in enabling or discouraging women's participation in the judiciary?
(Rituparna Patgiri is an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Sexual crimes against animals: Plea in HC
New Delhi: Delhi High Court is likely to examine a plea seeking to prosecute those involved in sexual crimes against animals next month. The bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on May 28 posted the matter for further hearing on July 16 to enable the petitioner to bring more facts on record. The court was dealing with a plea filed by the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO) that highlighted the consequences of the "complete repeal" of Section 377 (unnatural sexual offences) of IPC under the newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). While Section 377 of the IPC was read down by Supreme Court in the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar judgment to decriminalise consensual same-sex relationships, its complete deletion from BNS inadvertently decriminalised sexual violence against animals, it said. The parliamentary standing committee on home affairs, the plea said, in its report on BNS highlighted the removal of Section 377, proposing reinstating it to address non-consensual sexual offences against men, transpersons and animals. It submitted that in April 2025 alone, a couple of crimes were reported in Delhi against animals. A man was arrested in Shahdara for allegedly raping several dogs. A pet dog, which succumbed later, was found unconscious on a road in Saket, and a condom was found in its intimate parts. tnn


News18
21 minutes ago
- News18
'TMC Extends Full Support To...': BJP's Suvendu Adhikari After Privilege Motion In Assembly
Last Updated: Adhikari's heated remarks came after TMC moved a motion for breach of privilege in the Assembly against Adhikari for his alleged derogatory remarks against CM Mamata Banerjee. Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, on Tuesday launched a sharp attack on the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC), accusing it of supporting terrorism and fostering extremism in the state. Adhikari's heated remarks came after TMC moved a motion for breach of privilege in the Assembly against Adhikari for his alleged derogatory remarks against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. 'The TMC party extends full support to terrorism and extremists… People of Mamata Banerjee's party are turning Bengal into a valley of extremists and are protecting them," Adhikari alleged. On Tuesday afternoon, ministers Chandrima Bhattacharya, Shobhandev Chatterjee, Arup Biswas, and Indranil Sen submitted a notice for Privilege Motion against Adhikari to Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee on behalf of the state's ruling party. The ruling party alleged that on Tuesday, Suvendu Adhikari accused the Chief Minister of 'speaking in favour of Pakistan" outside the Assembly chamber. Earlier in the day, the West Bengal Assembly also passed a resolution expressing appreciation for the Indian armed forces for their recent operations targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The resolution also condemned the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 people—most of them tourists—lost their lives. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee expressed sorrow over the tragic incident and paid tribute to the victims. 'We do not support terrorism in any way. In Pahalgam, tourists lost their lives. We condemn this incident. Three victims were from Bengal. During the incident, one Muslim man (Adil Hussain Shah) opposed them and sacrificed his life. We salute and pay tribute to him also," Banerjee said. She also noted that West Bengal was the only state to bring forward such a resolution in its Assembly. Just days earlier, on Sunday, Adhikari had also accused the Chief Minister of shielding extremist groups and anti-national elements, claiming she was providing protection to Jamaat Hefazat and other radical forces. First Published: June 10, 2025, 23:18 IST


Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Raja Singh hints at tussle within BJP over Jubilee Hills bypoll candidate
Hyderabad: Goshamahal MLA T Raja Singh has stirred the pot again with remarks hinting at internal conflicts within the BJP over party candidate for bypoll for Jubilee Hills seat. The seat has fallen vacant following the death of BRS MLA Maganti Gopinath on Sunday. Raja Singh said that the BJP might choose its candidate for the Jubilee Hills by-election based on caste dynamics, while wondering if the party would ignore caste and instead prefer to pick a senior leader. Claiming that MIM had sold Muslim votes to the BRS during the last election, he sought to know if this time the party would sell them to Congress or the pink party.