Proportional representation is fundamental to a democratic society. The legitimacy of public institutions depends not merely on their independence, but also on whether people from different sections of society have a meaningful opportunity to participate in them.
This becomes particularly important in the judiciary, where representation influences not only institutional diversity, but also public confidence in the administration of justice. The persistent underrepresentation of women in India's higher judiciary, therefore, demands serious examination.
Recently on October 6, 2026, Justice Sunita Agarwal took oath as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, only the 13th woman to be appointed to the Court in its history. Her appointment increased the number of women judges from two to three, against a working strength of 37 judges. Women, therefore, constitute just 8.1 per cent of the Supreme Court's strength.
More than seven decades after its establishment, the country's highest judicial institution continues to have a strikingly poor record of women's representation.
The figures present a striking disparity across various High Courts. According to the Ministry of Law and Justice, 7,852 women officers occupy positions against a sanctioned strength of 25,886 across district and subordinate courts, accounting for approximately 38 per cent as of February 2025. State-level figures reveal even higher concentrations: Goa records around 70 per cent, while Meghalaya and Nagaland hover near 63 per cent.
However, the representation declines considerably at the higher levels. A press release issued by the Ministry on February 2, 2026, reported that women constituted only 116 of the 814 working judges across the High Courts. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had 18 women judges out of 61, Bombay had 12 out of 80, while Delhi and Madras had 10 each. Several High Courts - including those of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and Patna - had only two women judges each. The High Courts of Meghalaya, Odisha, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh had only one woman judge each, while Manipur, Tripura and Uttarakhand had none.
These numbers form an inverted pyramid broader at the lower judiciary level and tapering at the higher judiciary level. This declining representation of women at higher judicial levels has also attracted attention within the judiciary.
Recently speaking at the 12th convocation of the University of Science and Technology at Meghalaya, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the number of women in the higher judiciary did not reflect the actual proportion of women in the legal profession or the country. He further suggested that since the Collegium remains predominantly male, a woman judge should be invited to participate in its proceedings. Such participation, he argued, would provide better representation of the realities of the Bar and contribute to more inclusive deliberations.
Justice Bhuyan also drew attention to the discrepancy between women's increasing entry into the legal profession and their limited representation among designated senior advocates and higher court judges. Referring to judicial services in Assam, Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Telangana, he observed that women's entry into Grade III judicial services was sometimes above 50 per cent, reaching approximately 65 per cent in Assam. At the Grade II level, their representation was around 45 per cent, while it declined to approximately 25–30 per cent at Grade I. According to him, representation falls sharply when selection becomes subjective rather than being determined through objective criteria.
The figures and observations discussed above reveal that the underrepresentation of women in India’s higher judiciary is not merely a question of numbers; it points to a deeper institutional problem. While women’s participation in the subordinate judiciary and the legal profession has grown considerably, their presence diminishes as they move towards positions of greater authority and institutional influence. This declining representation raises important questions about the processes through which judicial appointments are made, the criteria applied in assessing merit and the structural barriers that continue to impede women’s professional advancement. If women constitute a substantial proportion of those entering the judicial services but remain significantly underrepresented at the level of High Courts and the Supreme Court, the problem cannot simply be attributed to a shortage of eligible women.
The responsibility to address this imbalance rests considerably with the institutions entrusted with judicial appointments. The Collegium, in particular, must recognise that merit and representation need not be treated as competing considerations. Greater transparency in appointments, wider consideration of eligible women from the Bar and judicial services, and a more conscious effort to address gender disparities are necessary. The suggestion made by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan regarding women’s participation in Collegium deliberations also deserves serious consideration. An institution that makes decisions shaping the composition of the higher judiciary should not remain indifferent to the absence of women’s voices within its own decision-making structure.
At the same time, representation cannot be achieved through appointments alone. It requires addressing the conditions that affect women’s progression in the legal profession, including unequal professional opportunities, inadequate institutional support, gender stereotypes and the challenges of sustaining long legal careers. The experiences of women lawyers and judicial officers must inform any meaningful effort towards reform. Equally, the appointment process must ensure that capable women are not overlooked because established professional networks and conventional measures of visibility continue to favour their male counterparts.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of the judiciary rests not only on its independence and constitutional authority, but also on its ability to command public confidence. A judiciary that adjudicates questions of equality, dignity and justice must also be willing to examine inequalities within its own institutional structure. The appointment of a woman judge should not be treated as an exceptional achievement or an occasion for celebration in isolation. It should form part of a sustained institutional commitment to ensuring that women have an equal opportunity to occupy the highest judicial offices.
Seven decades after the establishment of the Supreme Court, having only three women among 37 judges is not a statistic that an institution committed to constitutional equality can afford to overlook. The question, therefore, is no longer whether women are capable of occupying the highest judicial offices, but why the institutional pathways leading to those offices continue to remain so unequal.
Barooj Abid is a law student based in Ranchi.