women judges in the Supreme Court are fewer in number and have shorter tenures
With the retirement of Justice Abhay S. Oka on May 24, 2025, the strength of the Supreme Court is now at 31, from a sanctioned strength of 34 judges. Only two female judges are part of the full bench at present, of which Justice Bela M. Trivedi is set to retire on June 9, 2025, her last working day being May 16, 2025. That leaves Justice B.V. Nagarathna as the lone woman judge in the top court.
In fact, until now, there have been only 11 female Supreme Court judges, which accounts for just 4% of a total of 279 judges who have presided over the Supreme Court of India since January 28, 1950, when the Court came into being.
Viewing the tenures of these 11 judges, what is evident is that at any given time, the Supreme Court has never had more than four women justices. In fact, the very first instance of the Supreme Court having more than one woman judge at the same time was on 13 September, 2011, when Justice Ranjana P. Desai was elevated to the apex Court while Justice Gyan Sudha Misra was active (she had been a Supreme Court justice since April 30, 2010). This lasted until April 27, 2014, when Justice Gyan Sudha Misra retired.
As shown in the graphic below, it would not be until August 7, 2018 when the Supreme Court would comprise of three female judges for the first time. This lasted for almost two years, until Justice R. Banumathi's retirement on July 19, 2020.
Just over a year later, on August 31, 2021, the Supreme Court would comprise of four female judges for the first time: Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
The top Court is yet to see five female judges at the same time.
Higher age of appointment of female judges
The median age appointment of female judges is 61, whereas that of male judges is 59, as shown in the graphic below where each point represents a judge.
Judges of the Supreme Court must retire upon attaining the age of 65, as per Article 124 of the Constitution of India. With the median age of appointment of female judges and male judges differing, their tenures in the Supreme Court also differ. Female judges spend around six months less than male counterparts who are not elevated to the Chief Justice of India. The tenure of female judges is four years lesser than male judges who were elevated to the Chief Justice of India, as shown in the graphic below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Refuses To Reduce Lawyer's Sentence For Abusing Woman Judge, Says...
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today rejected a petition by a lawyer convicted of abusing a woman judicial officer in a court in Delhi. The top court refused to reduce the imprisonment sentence to 6 months and said, "Today, the majority of our officers in Delhi are women. They will not be able to function if somebody can get away like this. Think of their state," the bench commented orally. The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea against the order of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the conviction of a lawyer who used abusive language towards a woman judge in a challan matter inside the trial court. The lawyer used abusive, vulgar expletives after the judge had adjourned the matter. While hearing the plea, Justice Manmohan verbally remarked, "Just see the inspection report, the language used, we cannot even say in the open court". Justice Manmohan further said that if a stern view is not taken against such behaviour, women judicial officers would not be ensured a safe work environment. "Today, the majority of our officers in Delhi are women. They will not be able to function like this- if somebody can get away like this. Think of their state," the bench said. The lawyer, Sanjay Rathore, was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 509 (intending to outrage modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 3 months under Section 189 (injury to public servant), and an additional three months under Section 353 (assault or criminal force against public servant to deter them from their duty). The trial court directed that the sentences would run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of two years. Later, the High Court said that the sentence would run concurrently and not consecutively, reducing his sentence to 18 months from two years The counsel for the petitioner urged the Supreme Court bench to reduce his term of imprisonment to six months. He stressed several "mitigating factors" for this consideration, like his ageing parents and young children. He informed that the Bar Council has also acted against the lawyer.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Maternity benefits integral to right to life, health and equality
— Rituparna Patgiri In a recent judgment on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order that had denied maternity leave to a government school teacher for the birth of her third child. The Court ruled that maternity leave is part of a woman's reproductive rights and requires constitutional protection. This case once again highlights how maternity benefits are integrally connected to notions of social justice and inclusion. Historically, the provision of paid maternity leave is connected to the idea of the welfare state from the 1880s. It emerged as an outcome as well as a cause of women's influence in policy making. Maternity benefits were first granted in welfare states such as Bismarckian Germany and France to deal with concerns about depopulation and maternal and infant health problems. This helped incorporate more and more women into the state apparatus as well as workforce. In 1919, the newly formed International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted the Maternity Protection Convention. It called for 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, free medical care during and after pregnancy, job guarantees upon return to work and periodic breaks for nursing. Today, almost all countries have adopted this convention in some or the other form. These gains in terms of reproductive justice are the result of women's activism and push for social justice. Historically, the rights of working women were usually overlooked in policy priorities. In the context of India, the history of women's reproductive rights and freedom dates back to the pre-independence period. The Maternity Benefit Act – drafted by B. R. Ambedkar, N. M. Joshi and M. K. Dixit – was introduced in the Bombay Legislative Council in 1929. This was in response to the presence of a sizable number of women workers in Mumbai's textile industry, who needed better medical care. Mill owners were not happy because they felt that the burden of taking care of women's maternal care was unfairly placed on them. There was resistance to hiring women. Nonetheless, several provincial maternity benefit acts were passed in Madras (1934), Uttar Pradesh (1938), West Bengal (1939) and Assam (1944). In the 1940s-50s, Ambedkar pushed for the codification and unification of labour laws, including maternity protection. In post-independence India, the Maternity Benefit Act was enacted in 1961. It regulated the employment of women in various sectors (including government agencies, private corporations and factories, mines, plantations, shops and establishments with ten or more employees) before and after childbirth, and provided maternity benefits. The Act granted benefits such as 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, no dismissal during maternity leave, no arduous work during pregnancy and nursing breaks after childbirth. The Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 was amended in 2017. This act extended maternity leave to 26 weeks, facilitated the establishment of childcare facilities like creches in workplaces with 50 or more employees, and granted mothers the right to visit these creches during the day. It also required employers to inform women of the maternity leave provisions at the time of joining. These provisions were mandated by the 2000 ILO Maternity Benefit Convention. However, some countries have also introduced paid parental or family leave policies. It extends the idea of paid maternity leave to make workplaces more gender inclusive. In 1974, Sweden became the first country to introduce parental leave – available to both parents – as a gender neutral policy. It went beyond the idea of the traditional notion that caregiving is solely a woman's responsibility. Some countries in Northern Europe – such as Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland – as well as other Eastern European nations like Estonia, Latvia, and Ukraine, provide one year of parental or family leave. There are only eight countries in the world (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Suriname, Tonga and the United States of America) that do not guarantee paid family leave at the national level for either men or women. In addition, the issue of paid maternity leave has constantly ignited debates about whether the responsibility to pay for the leave period lies with the state or the employer. In the absence of consensus, women continue to bear the brunt and face discrimination in both recruitment and promotion in workplaces. This is reflected in low female labour force participation, which stood at 37 per cent according to Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), 2022–23). Moreover, the India Discrimination Report 2022 by Oxfam India suggests that gender discrimination is the reason for 98 per cent of the employment gap between males and females. Employers are often prejudiced against women because of their caregiving and household responsibilities. Although the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 was a progressive step, its implementation remained sketchy. It applies only to the formal sector where less than 10 per cent of Indian women are employed. Awareness about its provisions is also low, and employers often fail to comply, particularly with requirements such as creche facilities. Moreover, while work from home is permitted by law after the maternity period depending on the nature of the work, it is often left to employers' discretion. As such, women are dependent on the employers' for availing their legal rights. Also Read | Women in judiciary: A mountain to climb It may be argued that there is a need to extend the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act to the informal sector, where the majority of Indian women, especially from marginalised sections, are employed. Women in informal sectors like domestic work, agriculture, construction sites, street vending, etc. also require protection of their reproductive rights in their workplaces. The private sector too needs to be made more compliant in implementing the act. There have also been demands that maternity benefits should be granted to contractual employees in addition to permanent ones. In 2023, the Delhi High Court noted that the denial of maternity benefits is inhumane and violates constitutional rights. This was in response to the University of Delhi's arbitrary termination of the services of a contractual employee while she was on maternity leave. As more and more jobs are privatised and contractualised, extending the act to both the private sector and contractual employees has become imperative. While many countries have moved towards a more progressive parental or family leave policy, India does not yet have a comprehensive family or paternity leave law in place. Fathers do not get paternity leaves, which not only limits their ability to share caregiving responsibilities but also reinforces traditional gender roles that are biologically essentialist. In this context, better implementation of the existing maternity leave policy, alongside a discussion over a comprehensive family leave policy, becomes important. After all, maternity benefits are an integral part of the right to life, the right to health and the right to equality making it a question of women's inclusion, social justice and constitutional protection of their rights. How has the evolution of maternity benefit policies in India reflected broader shifts in the understanding of women's reproductive rights and social justice? Despite the existence of the Maternity Benefit Act (2017), why does the implementation gap persist, especially in the private and informal sectors? What are the implications of excluding informal sector and contractual women workers from maternity benefits, both socially and economically? Do you think better maternity and family leave policies will help increase female labour force participation and reduce the gender employment gap? How does the legal and policy framework for maternity benefits in India compare with global best practices, particularly in the Global North? (Rituparna Patgiri is an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with 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.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
In defence of court holidays
Written by Shubham Shukla and Kartikey Singh On May 26, as the Supreme Court (SC) began its seven-week 'summer recess', now officially termed 'Partial Court Working Days' (PCWD), critics resort to familiar complaints about 'judicial holidays' amid rising case pendency. However, this prevailing narrative misses the point. These breaks are not indulgences; they are structural safeguards, providing a critical breathing space that sustains 'judicial reasoning' in a system strained by relentless caseloads. Though rooted in colonial-era judges' discomfort with Indian summers and a craving for Christmas breaks, judicial vacations today serve a far more vital purpose. They enable intellectual rejuvenation, meticulous 'judgment writing', and deep legal research. Case pendency and blame game India's judicial backlog — over 4.5 crore cases, as per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) — is undeniably serious. But to attribute this crisis to judges' vacations is both analytically lazy and empirically indefensible, as also acknowledged in 2023 by the then Union Law Minister. A data-driven study based on Bombay High Court (HC) records found that court vacations have no significant impact on either 'disposal rates' or the time taken to resolve cases. This finding is not surprising when one considers institutional realities. India's SC functions almost year-round, hearing 'oral arguments' every weekday except during the mid-year and winter breaks, unlike many of its global counterparts. With 190 sitting days annually, India's apex court stands among the hardest-working top courts across the world. By comparison, according to the Supreme Court Observer, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sits for just 68 days, the High Court of Australia for 97, South Africa's Constitutional Court for 128, the UK SC for 149, Israel's apex court for 159, and Bangladesh's for 183. Importantly, India's top court doesn't just sit more often, it hears far more cases. In the first half of 2025 alone, nearly 21,000 cases were placed before the SC, dwarfing SCOTUS's annual intake of 5,000-7,000 and leaving courts in the UK, Australia, and South Africa far behind. Even when it comes to non-sitting days, India fares better than most: The SC has 175 non-working days, compared to the US (297), Australia (268), South Africa (237), the UK (216), Israel (206), and Bangladesh (182). Yet, despite having more holidays and fewer sitting days, these other courts do not grapple with the scale of pendency that afflicts India. The reason is structural. The judicial systems of other countries limit access to the apex court through strict docket control, selective case admission, and robust lower court infrastructure. India's SC, by contrast, embodies a more expansive judicial philosophy, functioning both as a constitutional court and as the court of last resort for a vast and diverse population. This broad access — extending even to service, bail, and land disputes — reflects a democratic commitment to judicial access, though it inevitably contributes to a much heavier caseload. The relentless grind of a judge The popular perception of judges enjoying excessive leisure during vacations is a profound misconception. It fails to account for the intense, often invisible workload they undertake daily —work that extends far beyond courtroom hours. Unlike most professionals, judges rarely take personal leave while courts are in session, reserving it only for dire emergencies or serious illness. The real labour of adjudication begins after the court rises. A recent example comes from Bombay High Court's Justice Madhav Jamdar, who dictated an 85-page Transfer of Property Act judgment in open court on December 19, 2024. But it was uploaded on the HC website on 30 May 2025 — almost six months later. In his own order, he recorded that, even while conducting daily hearings for more than two hours after court hours, he still corrects and signs orders until 11:30 pm, reads case papers until 2:00 am, and works on weekends and holidays to clear his docket. This intense schedule lays bare the sheer volume of judicial labours beyond courtroom hours, demonstrating that judges every day need to balance exhaustive hearings, voluminous drafting, and meticulous editing against the limits of time. Notably, the length of a judgment often reflects the complexity of the legal questions involved. The most significant cases — those concerning privacy, reservation, or federalism — frequently run into hundreds of pages and shape jurisprudence for decades. These are not merely legal puzzles; they involve relentless public scrutiny, have zero margin for error, and impact millions of lives. Crafting such judgments demands immense intellectual labour: Exhaustive research, deep contemplation, parsing voluminous records, engaging with precedents, and rigorous deliberation within the Bench. Intellectual depth is paramount, and rushing such tasks in a state of 'cognitive exhaustion' risks shallow reasoning, conflicting precedent, and long-term jurisprudential damage — a far greater injustice than a well-considered pause. This is not a matter of personal preference; it is a clinical imperative. The stakes in many SC and HC cases are existential — the legality of a student's arrest, the future of a minor in a custody battle, or the constitutional validity of a statute. Importantly, judges hear arguments in court for an average of 7–8 hours a day. Without structured time to decompress and reflect, impaired cognitive function becomes inevitable, increasing the risk of judicial error and subsequent reversals on appeal. Judicial vacations thus serve as a necessary prophylactic. They provide an opportunity to recalibrate, catch up on judgment writing, and engage with wider reading, including interdisciplinary scholarship in economics, sociology, or political theory that increasingly informs welfare jurisprudence. Several judges have publicly acknowledged the necessity of these breaks. Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, speaking at a public event last year, noted that judges remain deeply committed even on weekends — visiting HCs, attending Bar events, or engaging in legal aid work. More importantly, without adequate, structured breaks, judges face serious risks of burnout, loneliness, and compassion fatigue. Empirical studies on 'judicial stress' show elevated levels of secondary trauma and emotional exhaustion. This is not just a personal or institutional burden. If left unaddressed, it may reduce judicial capacity, delay adjudication, and — perhaps most dangerously — erode public confidence in the judiciary's ability to deliver reasoned, impartial, and humane justice. Moreover, these breaks also serve as a crucial respite for advocates, who routinely operate under intense pressure due to rigid procedural deadlines and demanding court schedules. During vacations, far from 'shut down', the judicial functioning continues through Partial Court Working Days Benches, during which the Registry — the court's administrative backbone — also remains active. Urgent cases, especially those involving life and liberty, are routinely heard, ensuring that fundamental rights are not suspended during breaks. Blaming vacations for judicial delays ignores the real issues: Imperfect case scheduling, routine adjournments, chronic vacancies, and outdated infrastructure. As President Droupadi Murmu aptly noted last year, the deeper malaise lies in the 'black coat syndrome'— that vacations neither cause nor solve. Instead of targeting judicial breaks, policy focus should shift to genuine reforms: Appointing more judges, overhauling infrastructure, modernising procedures, and promoting alternative dispute resolution. The writers are lawyers based in New Delhi
