Diversity in the Judiciary

Context

In early 2026, Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026. This private member’s Bill seeks to mandate social diversity within the higher judiciary and proposes the establishment of regional benches of the Supreme Court to democratize access to justice.

About the News

Concept of Judicial Diversity: It refers to the equitable representation of various social, gender, caste, and regional groups within the court system. A diverse bench ensures that judicial interpretations reflect the collective lived experiences of India's multi-layered society.

Key Statistics on the Indian Judiciary:

Caste Representation: Between 2018 and 2024, approximately 78% of High Court judges belonged to upper castes. In contrast, Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) accounted for only about 5% each.
Gender Gap: As of August 2024, women constitute only 14% of High Court judges. Currently, there is only one sitting woman judge in the Supreme Court (Justice B.V. Nagarathna).
Minority Representation: Religious minorities account for less than 5% of judges appointed to the higher judiciary over the last six years.
Pendency & Vacancies: As of January 2026, the Supreme Court faces over 90,000 pending cases. Furthermore, High Courts struggle with a nearly 33% vacancy rate, severely hampering the speed of justice.

Constitutional Framework

Article 124: Governs the appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Article 217: Outlines the appointment process and qualifications for High Court judges.
Article 130: Grants the CJI authority, with Presidential approval, to appoint "other places" as seats for the Supreme Court, providing the legal basis for regional benches.

Need for Diversity in the Judiciary

Enhanced Public Trust: Representation strengthens institutional legitimacy. For instance, the elevation of Justice B.R. Gavai signaled a commitment to including marginalized communities in the highest echelons of law.
Inclusivity in Interpretation: Diverse backgrounds help judges understand the social context of disputes. Women judges, for example, often bring vital sensitivity to cases involving domestic violence and gender sensitization.
Correcting Historical Exclusion: Reform addresses systemic barriers; India’s lack of a woman Chief Justice for over seven decades highlights the need for structural change.
Democratization of the Bar: Visible role models at the top encourage first-generation lawyers and marginalized students to pursue litigation careers.
Advancing Social Justice: A diverse bench aligns the judiciary with the constitutional goals of equality by reflecting the varied social realities of the litigants.

Challenges

Opaque Collegium System: The lack of transparency in the current appointment process can perpetuate "elite networks," often excluding qualified candidates from marginalized backgrounds.
Structural Barriers for Women: Inadequate infrastructure (e.g., lack of separate washrooms in district courts) and patriarchal norms create a "funnel effect," where fewer women reach senior positions.
Lack of Formal Reservation: Unlike the lower judiciary, the higher judiciary has no constitutional quotas for caste or gender, making diversity dependent on judicial discretion.
Geographical Barriers: The centralization of the Supreme Court in Delhi makes it difficult for lawyers from distant regions (like the Northeast or South India) to gain the visibility required for elevation.

Way Forward

Institutionalizing Diversity Metrics: Formally include demographic diversity as a criterion in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for judicial appointments.
Establishing Regional Benches: Set up permanent Supreme Court benches in Chennai, Mumbai, and Kolkata to reduce travel costs and decentralize justice.
Time-bound Appointments: Mandate a 90-day window for the government to clear names recommended by the Collegium to prevent "pocket vetoes" of diverse candidates.
Reviving Appointment Reforms: Consider a transparent body similar to the NJAC, balancing judicial independence with executive and civil society oversight.
Pipeline Mentorship: Create formal programs to support first-generation and marginalized lawyers, ensuring a steady stream of diverse talent for future judicial roles.

Conclusion

The pursuit of a diverse judiciary is not a compromise on merit; rather, it is an enrichment of it. By implementing the reforms suggested in the P. Wilson Bill, India can ensure that its "temples of justice" truly reflect the society they serve. A judge who understands the social context of a litigant is a more effective guardian of the Constitution.

Diversity in the Judiciary