Revision summary
Women remain under-represented on Supreme Court and High Court benches despite a large pool at the Bar. Diversity improves judging in gender, family and workplace cases; equity and inclusiveness are Articles 14–16 values the Court itself enforces. The filter is informal networks and seniority practice, not a constitutional ban. Publish data, widen the district-judge and senior-advocate pool, and name gender diversity as a collegium criterion. Inclusion is about legitimacy of the Bench, not about a single judicial ideology.
Model answer
Introduction
The higher judiciary speaks the Constitution for the whole Republic, yet women remain a thin minority on the Supreme Court and High Court benches. Greater representation is desirable because diversity, equity and inclusiveness are conditions of legitimacy, not ornaments on an otherwise male collegium.
Body
Why representation is desirable
- Diversity of life experience on the Bench improves the quality of judging in cases on workplace harassment, family property, reproductive autonomy, and the POSH framework; a homogenous court systematically under-sees those facts.
- Equity demands that women, who are half the citizenry and a rising share of law graduates and advocates, are not filtered out at the point of elevation to the High Court and the Supreme Court.
- Inclusiveness is a constitutional value read with Articles 14, 15 and 16; a court that enforces those Articles while remaining almost all-male weakens its own moral authority.
- Visible women judges also change the pipeline: juniors, litigants, and court staff treat the courtroom as a shared public space rather than a male guild.
The present gap
- India has had distinguished women judges from Justice Fathima Beevi onward, yet the Supreme Court has never approached gender parity, and several High Courts have gone years with few or no women judges.
- Collegium elevation still leans on seniority at the Bar and on informal networks that historically favoured men; there is no constitutional bar on women, but there is a structural filter.
- Justice Indu Malhotra’s Sabarimala dissent and later benches on Article 15 show that women judges do not vote as a bloc; the case for inclusion is about perspective and fairness, not about a guaranteed outcome.
How to get there without lowering the office
- Publish gender-disaggregated data on recommendations, elevations, and residual vacancies, so the Memorandum of Procedure is not a closed male conversation.
- Widen the pool from district judges and from women senior advocates, and make transfer, housing, and parental-leave practice compatible with a judicial career.
- Recommendation: treat gender diversity as an express collegium criterion alongside seniority and merit, as several Law Commission and parliamentary committee notes have already urged.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD P[Pool of women lawyers and DJs] --> C[Collegium elevation] C --> B[Diverse High Court and SC benches] B --> D[Diversity equity inclusiveness] B --> L[Legitimacy of constitutional judging]
Conclusion
Greater representation of women in the higher judiciary is desirable because a constitutional court that is diverse, equitable and inclusive judges better and is believed more. The gap is structural, not a shortage of women lawyers; the collegium and the Memorandum of Procedure must treat gender as a criterion of a complete Bench.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the states to improve their fiscal position?
Next question in the 2021 paper (Q3). View answer →
-
Does the Constitution reserve High Court seats for women?
No. Articles 124 and 217 are gender-neutral. Desirability of representation is a matter of appointment practice and equity, not of a present quota clause.
-
Will more women judges mean identical judgments?
No. The argument is diversity of perspective and public confidence, not a feminist whip on every bench.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
"Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike…"In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India. -
2025 · Q13 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA. -
2024 · Q14 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world's most powerful judiciary ? -
2022 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
"The most significant achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court." Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws. -
2018 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine. (15). -
2017 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
'Constitutional Morality' is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of 'Constitutional Morality' with the help of relevant judicial decisions.
Indian Constitution
Constitutional morality is fidelity to liberty, equality, dignity and the rule of law in the Constitution itself. Kesavananda (1973) locked those essential facets as basic structure. Navtej Johar (2018) preferred constitutional morality over social morality on Section 377. Indian Young Lawyers Association (Sabarimala, 2018) tested temple exclusion against Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25. NCT of Delhi (2018) used the doctrine to restrain a parallel Lieutenant Governor against an elected government.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the states to improve their fiscal position?
Governance and Policy
The 14th Finance Commission raised States’ share in the divisible pool from 32 to 42 per cent for 2015–20. Untied devolution, not only CSS, let States fund their own priorities and borrow on a more predictable base. Horizontal criteria helped poorer and forested States; revenue-deficit grants closed residual gaps. Local-body and disaster grants reduced raids on State revenue for third-tier and calamity costs. Cesses outside the pool and later GST shocks limited the gain; the 15th FC kept devolution near that high watermark at 41 per cent.
Q4 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India?
Parliament and State Legislatures
Collective responsibility, questions, money votes, CAG audit and the PAC are the core accountability tools. PAC, usually Opposition-chaired, is the sharpest regular fiscal check on the executive. Disruptions, the Tenth Schedule whip, ordinances and thin committee reference reduce daily control. Parliament can still unseat a government and expose waste; it is not a rubber stamp, and it is not a full-time scrutineer either. Protecting Question Hour and default committee scrutiny would widen the extent without rewriting the Constitution.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.