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
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Encroachers can't claim right to occupy public land pending their rehabilitation': Delhi HC refuses relief to over 350 slum dwellers
'Encroachers cannot claim the right to continue occupying public land, pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as this would unduly impede public projects,' the Delhi High Court held last Friday (June 6) while deciding pleas by as many as 417 residents of Bhoomiheen Camp in Kalkaji. The residents were seeking the HC's protection from demolition of their settlements as well as their rehabilitation. Reasoning that the right to seek rehabilitation, as it is, is not an absolute constitutional entitlement 'available to encroachers such as themselves', Justice Dharmesh Sharma added that 'determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land.' Of the over 400-odd petitioners, the HC granted some relief to around 30 of them. On June 2, minutes before petitions to stay demolition of homes at the slum in Southeast Delhi's Govindpuri were heard by a HC vacation bench, the civic authorities had already started razing down the hutments. The petitioners had challenged orders by Justice Sharma, on May 26 and May 30, where he had rejected the dwellers' pleas for protection from demolition and their rehabilitation. The petitioners had moved the court first in 2023, claiming that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), in 'an arbitrary and illegal manner, proposed to demolish their jhuggi-jhopdis'. The proposal, they contended, was contrary to the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and surveys for their rehabilitation were conducted 'by an obscure, outsourced agency appointed by DDA'. It was also pointed out that due processes were not followed. Justice Sharma, while closing a bunch of petitions moved by the 417 dwellers, ruled, '… it is evident that the interim injunctions obtained by the petitioners have not only hindered the timely execution of the rehabilitation project but have also resulted in a significant escalation of public expenditure, thereby causing financial strain on the State. Even assuming, arguendo, that the petitioners may have plausible grounds to assert a legal right to rehabilitation, a favourable adjudication would at best extend the scope of eligible beneficiaries under the prevailing rehabilitation policy. However, such a contention cannot translate into a right to indefinitely occupy public land or retain possession of their respective jhuggi jhopri dwellings, especially when the removal is in furtherance of a larger public interest and in accordance with due process.' What the court ruled -Among the 417 petitioners, for 165 who were occupying upper floors of the jhuggis, and those who approached the HC without exhausting the remedy of the appellate authority after their claim for rehabilitation was rejected by the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC), the court dismissed their petitions. Such petitioners can, however, approach the appellate authority within six weeks, the court directed. However, the court clarified, such remedies 'shall not stand in the way of the DDA proceeding with the demolition action.' -The court also refused to grant any relief to a bunch of petitioners whose rehabilitation claims were rejected by the EDC as well as the Appellate Authority on the ground that they had failed to produce a valid and separate ration card in their individual names. -Justice Sharma, however, allowed relief for 26 petitioner-dwellers, whose rehabilitation claims were allowed by the appellate authority but were subsequently rejected by DDA. The court directed the competent authority 'to review, reconsider or recall their impugned decisions rejecting the claims of the present set of petitioners within six weeks, as per the 2015 policy, and to proceed with their relocation and rehabilitation in accordance with law.' -It dismissed pleas by 50 dwellers, where the appellate authority had rejected the claims on the ground that their names do not figure in the voter lists for the years 2012-2015, before the eligibility cut-off date, or on the ground that the voter card furnished by them was found to be invalid. -The court also dismissed pleas by six dwellers who were seeking two allotments against one jhuggi despite one allotment already made against the claimed structure. -In the case of one petitioner where the appellate authority allowed the claim but was not allotted an alternative dwelling unit, the HC directed DDA 'to proceed with the allotment of an alternative dwelling to the petitioner within six weeks, as per the 2015 Policy.'
Mint
27 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Himanta in Assembly: DCs can ‘push back' into Bangladesh anyone they find is a foreigner
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma Monday announced in a special one-day session of the Assam legislative assembly that the state government has decided to bring a 1950 Act into action to 'push back' into Bangladesh anyone who District Collectors prima facie find to be foreigners – without going through the state's existing system of Foreigners Tribunals. The CM claimed the state had been empowered to do so by the Supreme Court. He said this will be implemented in addition to the ongoing 'pushbacks' of people who have been declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs); around 330 such declared foreigners have been pushed into Bangladesh in the past couple of weeks. Speaking in the assembly, Sarma referred to the October 2024 judgement of the Supreme Court in which a majority of a five-member Constitutional Bench headed by then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which makes March 24, 1971 the cut-off date for citizenship in Assam. 'Four judges said 1971 is the cut-off date. But one thing the Supreme Court said repeatedly was that the people brought after 1971 should not be spared in any way. They will have to be deported… In that judgement, the Supreme Court gave the Assam government a sweeping power… The Supreme Court in this judgement affirmed that the 1950 expulsion Act remains valid and operative. That means for expelling foreigners, the government does not have to go to tribunals. The 1950 Act says that if the DC says that prima facie this person is a foreigner, he can be evicted from the state of Assam,' Sarma said. 'By the order of the Supreme Court, every Deputy Commissioner is empowered to evict anybody whom he feels is a foreigner. This is the law of the land… This power has been given to the state of Assam by the Honourable Supreme Court… It says in the Act itself that it will not be applicable to those who came for reasons like religious persecution,' he said. Sarma was speaking after multiple opposition MLAs, including Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Debabrata Saikia and AIUDF MLA Ashraful Hussain, spoke at length in the assembly during Zero Hour and Special Mention raising concern over the manner in which these pushbacks have been taking place, alleging that in multiple instances, Indians are being 'persecuted' in the name of a drive against foreigners. 'These pushbacks will be intensified. Because the way Pakistani elements have entered our state, Bangladesh fundamentalist elements have entered, to save itself, the state has to become more proactive than before. That's why the state government has decided that we will bring the Illegal Expulsion Act into action, and whoever the DCs think are foreigners, we will push back without referring to tribunals… Deportation will now be a reality. Even if their names are in the NRC,' he said. Sarma's statements led to a furore in the assembly, with opposition MLAs questioning the validity of the actions. Congress MLA Zakir Hussain Sikdar asked on what basis the DCs would identify 'foreigners' under this course of action, to which Sarma replied, 'The DC has to be satisfied about it.' This drew more opposition, with Sikdar shouting, 'That can't be the system.' Speaking in the assembly after Sarma, Leader of Opposition Saikia said the Act in question 'does not mention anything about pushback.' 'We are a state of India and in the Parliament of India, Union Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar had said it is the obligation of all countries to take back their nationals if they are found to be living illegally abroad. This is, however, subject to an unambiguous verification of their nationality. This is not a policy practised only in India; it is a generally accepted principle in international relations. Therefore, if Bangladeshis come to India, they have to go back, Bangladesh has to accept them and they have to be proved to be Bangladeshis,' he said. He said that even when the Act had first been introduced in 1950, it did not remain in force for very long. 'The Act they are talking about had been used for only a couple of days in Assam because at that time, it invited trouble for many Bengali Muslims and after an old resident was asked to leave his residence in Upper Assam town within a few days, Nehru was furious and wrote to Gopinath Bordoloi (the then Chief Minister) on April 10 to suspend the enforcement of the Act. It was in force for only a few days, and it was stopped,' he said. The system at present and the 1950 Act Under the existing system in the state, the identification and declaration of 'foreigners' is done through Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). FTs are quasi-judicial bodies that determine whether a person presented before them – usually referred by the border police or listed as 'D-voters' in electoral rolls – is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners by these tribunals have the option to appeal against the order by approaching the Gauahti High Court and the Supreme Court. One of the 13 questions that had been framed for and deliberated by that Constitutional Bench had been: 'Whether the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 being a special enactment qua immigrants into Assam, alone can apply to migrants from East Pakistan/Bangladesh to the exclusion of the general Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 made thereunder.' In the judgement, after upholding the validity of Section 6A, the court had issued a set of six directions, of which one was: 'The provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants.' The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 had commenced from March 1, 1950 and stated that if any person had been an ordinary resident of a place outside India and entered Assam, and the Central government is 'of opinion… that the the stay of such person or class of persons in Assam is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or of any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe in Assam', then the central government may 'direct' them to 'remove himself or themselves from India or Assam within such time and by such route as may be specified in the order.' It states that the Central government can delegate this power to any officer of the Central government or the Assam government.
