Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave has questioned the lack of social and gender diversity in the higher judiciary, claiming that 17 judges were appointed to the Supreme Court during former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure but “not one was a woman”. He argued that courts cannot deliver sensitive justice without drawing judges from a broader cross-section of society.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave has criticised the composition of India’s higher judiciary, alleging that it remains dominated by persons from privileged castes and the legal fraternity and does not sufficiently reflect the society whose rights it adjudicates.
Delivering the 17th K.M. Bashir Memorial Lecture, Dave specifically referred to appointments made during the tenure of former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud. Dave claimed that 17 judges were appointed to the Supreme Court during that period and “not one was a woman”.
“Most judges in this country are from higher caste and most of them belong to, you know, the legal fraternity. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who otherwise claimed himself to be a liberal judge, appointed 17 judges to Supreme Court. Not one was a woman. Unless you appoint judges from across cross-section of the society, they will never understand the sensitivity that justice delivery demands.”
“Justice delivery is not just giving a judgment in one form or the other. It is to understand what the problems are in the society and how to find a solution to those problems which is equitable and just, not just legal. It must be equitable and just. For that you need judges who are really able to understand the problems of the society, every section.”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave
The figure and description were presented by Dave during the lecture as part of his criticism of judicial appointments. His remark focused on gender representation and did not allege that any individual appointee lacked merit.
Judges Must Come From A Cross-Section Of Society: Dave
Dave argued that diversity in the judiciary is not merely symbolic. According to him, unless judges are appointed from a cross-section of Indian society, courts may fail to understand the social realities and sensitivities that justice delivery demands.
He alleged that most judges come from higher castes and that many are drawn from families or circles already connected with the legal profession. In his view, a narrowly composed judiciary risks approaching disputes through a limited range of lived experiences.
The concern is especially significant in cases involving caste discrimination, gender inequality, minority rights, access to education and employment, and the treatment of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other marginalised communities. Dave said India had still not overcome entrenched caste practices even after 77 years of constitutional government.
Representation Linked To Equality And Justice
Dave placed the appointments issue within the Constitution’s promises of equality, liberty, fraternity and justice. He said constitutional equality cannot remain limited to formal rules while institutions exercising the greatest authority continue to exclude large sections of society from positions of power.
Referring more broadly to the condition of women, Dave invoked Constituent Assembly member Hansa Mehta and her vision that freedom should bring equal status and opportunity to women who had suffered centuries of inequality through laws, customs and social practices.
He questioned whether that promise had been fulfilled, pointing to continued discrimination against women in public life, family property and everyday society. His remarks on the Supreme Court’s composition were offered as an institutional example of that wider failure.
A Continuing Debate Over Collegium Choices
The composition of constitutional courts has repeatedly generated debate because the collegium system does not operate through a reservation framework comparable to legislative bodies or many public services. Representation therefore depends substantially on the names identified and recommended by collegiums and ultimately appointed through the constitutional process.
Supporters of greater diversity argue that professional merit and social representation are not competing values. A wider pool can strengthen legitimacy, enrich deliberation and ensure that the institution benefits from experiences historically absent from decision-making spaces.
Dave’s criticism was directed at the outcome of the appointments process under the former CJI’s leadership. The speech did not provide a judge-by-judge analysis of the 17 appointments or discuss the full institutional role of the multi-member collegium and the Union government in each appointment.
His larger contention was that the Constitution has not failed; rather, those responsible for operating its institutions have failed to realise its commitment to equal status and opportunity.
Speech: 17th K.M. Bashir Memorial Lecture
Speaker: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave
Theme: “Are We Failing The Constitution Or Has The Constitution Failed Us?”