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.
When Justice Sunita Agarwal took oath as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on October 6, 2026, the appointment marked another significant moment in the representation of women in the higher judiciary. Reported as the thirteenth woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court in its history, Justice Agarwal had previously served as the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court. Her judicial career began with her elevation as an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court on November 21, 2011. Before entering the judiciary, she practised primarily in civil, writ, original and commercial jurisdictions for approximately 21 years. Her appointment raised the Supreme Court's working strength from 34 to 37 judges against a sanctioned strength of 38. More importantly, the number of women judges on the Supreme Court increased from two to three. However, even after this appointment, women constitute only approximately 8.1 per cent of the Court's working strength.
The figures present a striking disparity. 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 Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and Patna, had only two women judges each. Meghalaya, Odisha, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh had only one woman judge each, while Manipur, Tripura and Uttarakhand had none.
The disparity becomes even more pronounced in the Supreme Court. Speaking at the 12th convocation of the University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India, observed that out of a strength of 37 judges, only three were women. He remarked that this 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.
However, attributing this difference entirely to the Collegium would overlook another important dimension: the class structure of the legal profession.
Litigation in India remains unequal, as building an independent practice requires financial security, professional networks, established chambers and years of visibility. First-generation women lawyers often face additional barriers due to limited resources, social expectations and family responsibilities. Consequently, the subordinate judiciary offers a more stable career path through competitive examinations and defined service conditions. It should also be recognised as an important source of judicial talent. Experienced women judicial officers with competence and integrity deserve meaningful consideration for elevation to the High Courts. The result is a system in which women are required to overcome barriers that their male counterparts may not encounter to the same extent.
This is where the Collegium's composition enters this broader conversation. Greater gender diversity within decision-making institutions can bring a wider range of professional experiences to the process. This is not to suggest that a woman judge would necessarily decide a matter differently from a man; rather, a diverse institution is better placed to recognise talent across different professional trajectories and lived experiences.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether the Collegium system is failing Indian women. The more important question is whether the system, in its present form, is doing enough to ensure that qualified women have an equal opportunity to rise through every level of the judiciary. The answer requires greater transparency, a wider talent pool, institutional introspection and sustained attention to the progression of women from the subordinate judiciary and the Bar to the constitutional courts. Only then can the judicial pyramid begin to reflect, at its highest levels, the diversity that already exists at its base.
Views are personal.