Introduction

Men have long dominated India’s courts. Today, women comprise roughly 37% of all judges in India, but the. Still, this is stark at higher levels – only about 14% of High Court judges and under 10% of Supreme Court justices are women. This gap is striking given the Constitution’s guarantees of equality before the law (Article 14), non-discrimination on grounds of sex (Article 15), and equal opportunity in public employment (Article 16). The recent Pinky Meena decision illustrates the point vividly. In May 202,5, the Supreme Court reinstated a woman civil judge and expressly linked the need for more female judges to better justice. In Pinky Meena v. Rajasthan (2025), Justice S.C. Sharma (on a bench with Justice B.V. Nagarathna) observed that “a greater representation of women in the judiciary would greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making”. The Court noted that diverse benches “better respond to diverse social and individual contexts and experiences.” It held that the country “will greatly benefit from a judicial force that is competent, committed and most importantly, diverse.” In other words, a bench reflecting society’s makeup yields wiser, more empathic decisions and greater public trust.

The Gender Gap in India’s Judiciary

The statistics underscore the problem. According to the India Justice Report 2025, women constitute only about 14% of High Court judges and roughly 38% of lower (district) court judges. (By contrast, almost all judges in civil courts are women.) Many High Courts have just one woman judge, and some have none. As of August 2024, only 106 of 754 High Court judges nationwide were women. In the Supreme Court, the share of women is even lower – under 10%. For example, in early 202,5, only 2 out of 33 Supreme Court justices were women, and after the retirement of Justice Bela Trivedi in May 202,5, just one woman remained.

By comparison, several other countries have made greater strides. For instance, the United States Supreme Court is one-third female, and about 33% of U.S. federal and state judges are women. Countries like Canada and South Africa have nearly half their highest court benches filled by women (Canada’s Supreme Court is 44% female), and several Latin American courts have similar levels. In the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, which serves nine nations, over 60% of judges are women. By contrast, India lags far behind regional peers: a 2024 World Economic Forum report notes that “women represent only 13% of the judges in the high courts” in India, versus much higher proportions in many jurisdictions. This gap is hard to reconcile with India’s constitutional ideals. The Preamble and fundamental rights promise equality and justice “without distinction”, and Directive Principles (Art. 39A) call for equal justice. A judiciary that looks nothing like half the population undermines those commitments.

How Diversity Improves Judging

A diverse bench brings perspective. By life experience and outlook, women judges can bring sensitivity and empathy to cases involving gender, family, or social issues. Research suggests that women judges (in many countries) may be more likely to perceive the impact of laws on women’s lives and to give voice to marginalised perspectives. Even if all judges strive for impartiality, greater gender diversity enhances the breadth of decision-making. Multiple studies have found, for example, that mixed-gender panels can deliberate more thoroughly and produce more fully reasoned judgments. Significantly, diversity bolsters public confidence. An international IDLO study notes that “the mere presence of women in a legal decision-making role can counteract both actual and perceptions of gender bias”. In plain terms, people trust the justice system more when it visibly includes judges like themselves. Women judges show society that “justice is not closed to diversity by simply being there”. The IDLO report explains that even judges unaware of gender issues help improve the “credibility of the justice system and trust in its capacity to deliver on equality”. In short, diversity on the bench strengthens the legitimacy of courts.

Women on the bench can also inspire other women to pursue justice. Women attorneys and litigants gain role models and mentors when female judges are visible. The Supreme Court in Pinky Meena echoed this: “women’s visibility as judicial officers can pave the way for women’s greater representation in other decision-making positions”. Young women who see colleagues in robes will be more likely to aspire to those positions and more confident that the justice system understands their concerns. This pipeline effect is powerful: a bench with more women gradually shifts societal stereotypes about gender and authority.

Even without quotas, a critical mass of women judges can change courtroom cultures. Gender-sensitive training for all judges is essential, but many experts agree that numbers matter. As one study notes, gender justice is “best achieved when both women and men understand and respond appropriately to the experiences of women plaintiffs and victims,” yet “a critical mass of women on the bench can support attitudinal change in society regarding the role of women in decision-making and positions of authority”. In practice, having more women judges encourages impartiality and empathy broadly. Women judges may be especially attuned to issues like gender-based violence, workplace harassment, family rights, or discrimination. Their perspectives can help craft jurisprudence more sensitive to how laws affect women and children. Even if evidence is mixed on whether gender alone determines case outcomes, courts have recognised that representativeness enriches legal reasoning. As Justice Sharma put it in Pinky Meena, a more diverse judiciary “better responds to diverse social and individual contexts” – a quality that elevates the overall quality of decisions for everyone.

Recent Judicial and Expert Views

The Supreme Court has lately been frank about the need for change. In Pinky Meena (2025), the Court reinstated a diligent female officer from a tribal background, explicitly tying her reinstatement to broader social aims. It declared that women judges in senior roles “can shift gender stereotypes” in society, and that increasing their numbers “can increase the willingness of women to seek justice and enforce their rights”. The Court’s language was striking: it said India “will greatly benefit from a judicial force that is… diverse”. It noted that the appellant’s perseverance in the face of social stigma would ultimately benefit “the judicial system and the democratic project.” Justice Nagarathna (writing separately) has repeatedly advocated more women on the bench, quoting US Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dictum that “women belong in all places where decisions are being made. It shouldn’t be that women are the exception”.

Earlier, Chief Justice N.V. Ramana made headlines by urging female lawyers to demand 50% representation of women in the judiciary, calling it “your right, not a matter of charity”. This view – that equal presence is an entitlement under Article 14/16 – has gained traction. In academic and policy circles, the consensus is that a token presence of women is not enough. For example, the Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR) convened women lawyers to propose that every judicial appointment shortlist include women. That eventually, one-third to half of the appointees will be women.

Experts also emphasise gender-sensitive jurisprudence. In past speeches, Justice Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court has noted that judges must be alert to gender bias in legal reasoning. While international commentators caution that women judges are not automatically “soft” on crime or always decide in favour of women, most agree that a balanced bench helps prevent blind spots. For instance, a 2024 commentary observed that a bench of only men “is more likely to be unaware of subtle gender dynamics in cases involving women.” Conversely, the presence of women judges can ensure that matters like domestic violence, sexual harassment, medical rights, or discrimination receive a fuller appreciation of lived realities. Courts have begun to direct gender sensitisation training for all judges, recognising that even male judges benefit from education on gender norms. (For example, the Supreme Court has tasked the National Judicial Academy with ensuring gender-sensitivity training for the judiciary.)

Finally, increased female representation addresses the public trust and legitimacy concern noted above. As the IDLO study concludes, in societies where women have historically been marginalised, “female representation on the bench sends a powerful message” that the legal system is fair and inclusive. In that light, pink and “women’s” issues don’t exist in a vacuum: a woman’s case is everyone’s, and a diverse bench signals that courts serve all citizens equally.

Government Initiatives and Recommendations

Recognising the gap, several steps have been proposed and taken. Some state governments have introduced reservations in judicial services for women. For example, Bihar and Rajasthan reserve 30–35% of lower-court judicial service posts for women. These measures help increase the pipeline of female lawyers who may rise to higher benches later. The National Judicial Academy routinely conducts gender-sensitisation workshops for judges and judicial officers. Bar associations and women’s lawyer groups increasingly mentor female advocates and lobby for diversified appointments. In Parliament, the Law Minister has urged the judiciary to consider gender diversity when recommending names.

Civil society recommendations are bolder. The CLPR roundtable report (Feb 2025) explicitly calls for quotas in higher judiciary appointments: pushing for 33–50% of seats reserved for women, and ensuring that each collegium list for elevation includes women candidates. It also urges that when a woman judge retires, her vacancy be filled by a woman, preserving progress. Other advocates propose transparent appointment criteria (as in the UK’s Judicial Appointments Commission) and diversity monitoring. Indeed, many point out that Article 16 itself enjoins equality in public service appointments: if Parliament can pass laws reserving seats in legislatures, a similar approach could be constitutionally valid for the judiciary.

In short, the consensus suggestions include:

• Affirmative recruitment: Set targets or quotas for women in judicial appointments, and actively encourage female applications. For instance, a minimum share of women on shortlists can be required, or a woman can be appointed to every open seat (especially at the High Court level).
  
• Mentorship and outreach: Support networks for women judges and lawyers (as per IDLO’s recommendation) to mentor peers and younger women, and give public recognition to women jurists. This builds confidence and leadership skills.
  
• Training and sensitisation: Include mandatory training on gender issues in judicial training programs, so that all male and female judges understand how gender biases can affect litigation.
  
• Data and transparency: Collect and publish data on gender in judicial appointments so that progress can be measured (SDG 16.7.1 urges monitoring such diversity). IDLO stresses the need for regular data to track changes.
  
• Role modelling: Encourage high courts and the Supreme Court to balance future promotions and transfers to increase women’s presence. Notably, the Supreme Court is on track to have its first woman Chief Justice (Justice B.V. Nagarathna) in 2027 – a milestone that may boost women’s confidence in the system.
  

Internationally, some judicial commissions actively pursue gender balance. The Indian government might draw on best practices such as formal diversity mandates (e.g. Canada’s Judicial Advisory Committees aim for gender parity) or mentoring programs like those run by the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) in the U.S. At home, legal scholars have also suggested statutory amendments to the Judges (Transfer) Act or law school admission policies to improve gender diversity from the ground up.

Conclusion

India’s judiciary cannot afford to lag in gender diversity. The Pinky Meena judgment was a wake-up call: it reaffirmed that law and lived experience matter. A bench that reflects India’s richness – gender, caste, tribe and all – will make better decisions and earn greater trust from citizens. As the Supreme Court rightly observed, “the country will greatly benefit from a judicial force that is… diverse”. Governments, the bar, and the courts must now act on this principle. By expanding mentoring, training, and – where appropriate – affirmative measures to recruit and retain women, India can move toward a judiciary that lives up to its constitutional promise of equality and fair justice for all.

About the Author 

Ruhan Deb is a third-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida. He is keenly interested in litigation, focusing on Criminal Law and Competition Law. Beyond the legal realm, Ruhan is passionate about global politics and history, complementing his analytical approach to legal studies. His multidisciplinary interests reflect a commitment to understanding law in broader social and geopolitical contexts.