Judicial Diversity in India

Judicial Diversity in India will be a step closer towards a More Representative Higher Judiciary. Read here to learn more.

Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson has introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026, as a Private Member’s Bill seeking to mandate social diversity in the higher judiciary and establish regional benches of the Supreme Court to improve access to justice.

The proposal has reignited debate on an enduring question: Does India’s higher judiciary adequately reflect the social diversity of the country it serves?

What is Judicial Diversity?

Judicial diversity refers to the representation of different social groups across caste, gender, religion, region, and socio-economic backgrounds within the judicial system.

A diverse bench strengthens:

• Institutional legitimacy
• Inclusivity in constitutional interpretation
• Public trust in the justice system

In a plural society like India, courts are not merely dispute-resolution forums but guardians of constitutional morality. Representation thus acquires deeper democratic significance.

Current State of Representation in the Higher Judiciary

1. Caste Representation

Between 2018 and 2024:

• Nearly 78% of High Court judges appointed belonged to the upper castes.
• SCs and STs accounted for roughly 5% each.

This disparity raises concerns regarding equitable access to decision-making positions in the justice delivery system.

2. Gender Gap

As of August 2024:

• Women constitute only 14% of High Court judges.
• There is currently only one woman judge in the Supreme Court- B.V. Nagarathna.

India has not yet had a woman Chief Justice of India, highlighting structural underrepresentation.

3. Minority Representation

Religious minorities account for less than 5% of appointments to the higher judiciary in recent years.

4. Pendency and Access Concerns

As of January 2026:

• Over 90,000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court.
• Many appeals originate from High Courts geographically closer to Delhi, reflecting a regional imbalance in access.

High Courts continue to face around 33% vacancy rates, further straining the system.

Constitutional Framework

Several constitutional provisions govern judicial appointments and structure:

• Article 124: Appointment of Supreme Court judges.
• Article 217: Appointment of High Court judges.
• Article 130: Allows the Chief Justice of India, with Presidential approval, to designate other places as seats of the Supreme Court, forming the basis for regional benches.

Why Diversity in the Judiciary is Necessary

1. Enhancing Public Trust

• A judiciary that mirrors India’s social fabric enhances legitimacy.
• The elevation of R. Gavai was widely seen as a moment of symbolic inclusion, reinforcing faith among marginalised communities.
• Representation signals belonging.

2. Inclusivity in Constitutional Interpretation

Judges’ lived experiences influence legal reasoning. A diverse bench better understands:

• Social discrimination
• Gendered violence
• Marginalization
• Cultural practices

For example, the increasing presence of women judges has shaped gender-sensitive jurisprudence in domestic violence and workplace harassment cases.

3. Correcting Historical Under-Representation

• The absence of structured diversity mechanisms in higher judiciary appointments perpetuates historical exclusion.
• While lower judiciary appointments follow reservation policies, such diversity does not translate into elevations to High Courts and the Supreme Court.

4. Democratizing the Legal Profession

• Visible representation creates aspirational pathways.
• When marginalized lawyers see individuals from similar backgrounds elevated to the bench, it encourages broader participation in litigation and judicial careers.

5. Advancing Social Justice

• The Constitution envisions equality not only in rights but also in institutional representation.
• A diverse bench aligns judicial functioning with the transformative constitutional vision of justice, social, economic, and political.

Challenges to Achieving Judicial Diversity

1. Opaque Collegium System

• The Collegium system lacks formal transparency and objective diversity metrics.
• Selections may inadvertently reinforce elite professional networks.

2. “Old Boys’ Club” Culture

Informal professional hierarchies often favour established male circles, creating barriers for:

• Women
• First-generation lawyers
• Lawyers from marginalized regions

3. Absence of Formal Reservation in the Higher Judiciary

Unlike the lower judiciary, there is no constitutional mandate for reservation in High Courts or the Supreme Court. Diversity depends largely on discretion rather than institutional obligation.

4. Geographical Centralisation

The concentration of Supreme Court practice in Delhi disadvantages lawyers from distant states like Tamil Nadu, Odisha, or the Northeast.

Regional benches could:

• Reduce travel costs
• Improve access
• Broaden regional representation

5. Structural Barriers for Women

Practical infrastructure gaps, lack of facilities, childcare support, and safe working conditions affect the retention and advancement of women in the legal profession.

Proposal for Regional Benches

Under Article 130, the Supreme Court can sit at places other than Delhi with Presidential approval.

Establishing permanent benches in:

• Chennai
• Mumbai
• Kolkata

This would:

• Decentralize justice
• Reduce pendency
• Improve regional access
• Enhance representational diversity

Why Was the Collegium System Introduced?

Originally, Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution provided that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts would be appointed by the President “in consultation with” the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges.

However, the Constitution did not clearly define:

• Whether the CJI’s opinion was binding.
• Whether the executive had primacy.

The Three Judges Cases

The Collegium system evolved through judicial interpretation:

1. First Judges Case (1981): Executive primacy upheld.
2. Second Judges Case (1993): Judicial primacy established.
3. Third Judges Case (1998): Collegium expanded to CJI + 4 senior-most judges.

The Supreme Court held that:

• Judicial independence is part of the Basic Structure.
• Executive dominance in appointments could threaten independence.
• Therefore, the judiciary must have primacy in appointments.

Thus, the Collegium system was introduced to:

• Protect judicial independence.
• Prevent political interference.
• Maintain separation of powers.

Why Did the Supreme Court Strike Down the NJAC?

The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act created the NJAC.

Composition of NJAC:

• CJI
• Two senior Supreme Court judges
• Law Minister
• Two “eminent persons”

Grounds for Striking Down (2015 Judgment):

In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court invalidated the NJAC.

Key Reasons:

1. Violation of Basic Structure

Judicial independence is part of the Basic Structure.
Inclusion of the Law Minister and eminent persons was seen as:

• Giving the executive a decisive voice.
• Potentially politicizing appointments.

2. Veto Power Concern

Any two members could block a recommendation.
This meant:

• The Law Minister  and one eminent person could veto judicial choices.

The Court held that this diluted judicial primacy.

3. Fear of Executive Interference

The judiciary believed NJAC could:

• Compromise separation of powers.
• Create subtle political pressure in appointments.

Thus, the NJAC was struck down, and the Collegium system was restored.

How Will Regional Benches of the Supreme Court Improve Access?

Present Situation: The Supreme Court sits only in New Delhi. Litigants from Southern India, Northeast, and Western states must travel long distances.

This creates:

• High litigation costs
• Geographical inequality
• Reduced access for economically weaker sections

Constitutional Basis:

• Article 130 allows the CJI, with Presidential approval, to appoint other places as seats of the Supreme Court.
• Thus, regional benches are constitutionally permissible.

How Regional Benches Help will help Judicial diversity:

1. Improve Access to Justice

• Reduce travel and accommodation costs.
• Make the Supreme Court accessible to ordinary litigants.

2. Reduce Pendency

• Over 90,000 cases pending.
• Regional benches can distribute workload.

3. Enhance Federal Balance

• Reflect India’s cooperative federal structure.
• Decentralize judicial power.

4. Increase Regional Diversity

• Encourage elevation of lawyers from different regions.
• Reduce Delhi-centric concentration of practice.

Law Commission Recommendation:

The 229th Law Commission Report recommended:

• A Constitution Bench in Delhi.
• Cassation benches in Chennai, Mumbai, and Kolkata.

Way Forward

• Institutionalizing Diversity Metrics: Incorporate diversity as a formal criterion in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for judicial appointments.
• Transparent Appointment Mechanism: Revisit reforms similar to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), ensuring transparency while preserving judicial independence.
• Time-Bound Clearances: Mandate the executive to clear Collegium recommendations within a fixed timeframe.
• Mentorship and Pipeline Development:  Create structured mentorship programs for: First-generation lawyers, Women advocates, and Lawyers from marginalized communities
• Regional Decentralization: Operationalize regional benches to democratize access and representation.

Conclusion

Judicial diversity is not about compromising merit; it is about redefining merit to include lived experience, social awareness, and constitutional empathy.

In a democracy as vast and varied as India, justice must not only be delivered, it must be seen to emerge from institutions that reflect the people themselves.

A judiciary enriched by diversity becomes not weaker, but wiser; not divided, but deeply representative of the constitutional promise of equality.

Related articles:

• Supreme Court: 75 years of journey
• Judicial accountability
• Indian lower judiciary: Pendency and inefficiency plaguing the system