Despite progress in lower courts, women remain severely underrepresented in India’s higher judiciary, with only one woman judge currently serving in the Supreme Court. On International Women’s Day, the numbers highlight the urgent need for reforms to break the judicial “glass ceiling.”
On the occasion of International Women’s Day, discussions about gender equality in India’s institutions often turn toward the judiciary — a pillar of democracy that is expected to reflect fairness, diversity, and inclusivity. However, the representation of women in the Indian judiciary continues to remain significantly low, especially at higher levels such as the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Despite some improvements in the lower judiciary, women still face systemic barriers that limit their rise to senior judicial positions. Experts say that the situation highlights a persistent “glass ceiling” that prevents many capable women from reaching the top of the judicial hierarchy.
The issue is even more serious for women from minority and marginalized communities, who face additional obstacles in accessing opportunities and advancing within the legal profession.
Currently, the representation of women judges in the Supreme Court is extremely limited. As of 2025, there is only one woman judge in the apex court — Justice B.V. Nagarathna — out of a total strength of 34 judges. This means women constitute only about 2.9 percent of the Supreme Court bench.
The historical numbers also reveal the scale of the imbalance. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court in 1950, only 11 women have ever been appointed as judges. Out of the 287 total appointments made to the Court so far, women account for just 3.8 percent.
Significantly, India has never had a woman Chief Justice of India, which reflects the broader challenges women face in reaching the highest positions in the judiciary.
The situation in High Courts is slightly better but still far from equitable. Across all High Courts in the country, women judges make up only around 13.1 percent of the total strength.
There are also sharp differences between various High Courts. Five High Courts in India currently do not have a single woman judge. In seven other High Courts, women constitute less than 10 percent of the bench. On the other hand, the Sikkim and Telangana High Courts have the highest representation of women judges, with around 33.3 percent.
At the district and subordinate judiciary level, the representation of women is comparatively higher. Women account for around 35 percent of judges in the lower courts. However, the numbers still vary significantly between states. In Gujarat, women constitute only about 19.5 percent of the lower judiciary, while Goa has the highest representation with nearly 70 percent.
As of 2025, there are about 7,852 women judges working in district and subordinate courts across the country.
Despite this relatively stronger presence in lower courts, 17 out of the 36 states and Union Territories still have a smaller proportion of women judges than the national average.
The gender imbalance is also visible in the legal profession itself. Out of approximately 1.7 million advocates in India, only about 15 percent are women. The situation becomes even more concerning when it comes to leadership roles within the legal profession — women constitute only about 2 percent of elected representatives in State Bar Councils.
Experts say that several structural and social factors contribute to the low representation of women in the judiciary.
One major issue relates to the eligibility rules for judicial appointments. Article 233 of the Constitution requires a minimum of seven years of practice as an advocate to qualify for appointment as a district judge. The judiciary has interpreted this requirement to mean seven years of continuous practice.
Recently, policy discussions have also considered reducing this requirement to three years of practice in some judicial service recruitments. Legal experts believe that such a change could significantly help women enter the judiciary earlier.
Many women lawyers take career breaks during the early years of their profession due to marriage, childbirth, or family responsibilities. A lower practice requirement would allow them to apply for judicial positions earlier, before these career interruptions become barriers.
Another related rule in many states requires candidates to be at least 35 years old to enter the district judiciary through direct recruitment. At the same time, no person below the age of 55 can be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court.
These age requirements often overlap with a phase of life when many women face increased family responsibilities, making it more difficult for them to compete for positions in the higher judiciary.
Scholars and policymakers often describe the situation as the “leaking pipeline” phenomenon. The “leaking pipeline” refers to the pattern where women gradually disappear from the professional ladder as one moves from lower levels to higher positions.
The trend is clearly visible in the judiciary. While women account for around 35 percent of judges in the lower courts, their representation drops drastically to around 11 percent in higher courts and even lower in the Supreme Court.
Family responsibilities, personal choices, long working hours, lack of work-life balance, and limited access to opportunities often lead women to leave the profession midway through their careers. Many experts argue that this so-called voluntary withdrawal actually reflects the influence of social expectations and traditional gender roles.
Another frequently discussed factor is the opaque nature of appointments to the higher judiciary through the Collegium system.
In the lower judiciary, recruitment is conducted through formal examinations and clear eligibility criteria, which makes the process relatively transparent. This is one of the reasons why more women are able to enter the lower judiciary.
However, appointments to High Courts and the Supreme Court are made through the Collegium system, where the criteria for selection are not publicly defined. Critics argue that these appointments often depend on informal networks, professional reputation, and personal evaluations, which can disadvantage women who may have fewer connections within traditional legal circles.
Workplace conditions also play a significant role in discouraging women from continuing in litigation practice.
Many female lawyers report that the professional environment in courts can be hostile or sexist. According to a research paper titled “Structural and Discretionary Bias: Appointment of Women Judges in India,” 13 out of 19 judges interviewed acknowledged the presence of gender bias in the process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Another major challenge is the lack of supportive infrastructure in court complexes.
Basic facilities such as separate washrooms for women are still unavailable in many courts across the country. Reports suggest that nearly 22 percent of the 6,000 courts in India do not have separate toilets for women.
The absence of such basic infrastructure often discourages women from continuing litigation practice, prompting many law graduates to choose corporate legal careers instead.
Support systems such as maternity leave, childcare facilities, and flexible work arrangements are also limited in the legal profession, which contributes to a higher dropout rate among women lawyers.
Some states have attempted to address this imbalance by introducing reservation or enabling provisions for women in the lower judiciary. States such as Assam, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Odisha have adopted such policies and currently have more than 40 percent women judges in their lower courts.
However, similar affirmative measures have not yet been implemented for appointments to the higher judiciary.
The low representation of women judges has wider consequences for the justice system.
One major concern is the possibility of prejudice in judicial decisions when courts lack diverse perspectives. Critics have pointed to several controversial observations in past judgments.
For example, in August 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to a man accused of molestation on the condition that he would get a rakhi tied by the victim.
Similarly, in June 2020, while granting bail to a rape accused, the Karnataka High Court observed that the “after-rape behaviour of the victim is not how a rape victim ‘ideally behaves’“.
Many legal scholars argue that such remarks reflect gender stereotypes and highlight the need for greater gender sensitivity in judicial reasoning.
A more diverse judiciary, including more women judges, can also help expand the scope of law and bring new perspectives to legal interpretation.
Women judges have historically contributed to progressive developments in areas such as workplace harassment laws and reproductive rights. In India, the landmark Vishaka Guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace emerged from a broader understanding of gender justice.
Another important issue relates to access to justice. Many women litigants, especially those from economically weaker sections, feel more comfortable presenting their cases before a female judge. When women are underrepresented on the bench, it can discourage victims from approaching courts in sensitive matters.
Low representation also raises questions about the legitimacy of the judiciary as a truly representative institution. When a system that serves nearly half the population does not reflect that population within its decision-making structure, it can create a trust deficit in the justice system.
Additionally, the lack of women in senior judicial positions limits the availability of role models for younger generations. Prominent women judges can inspire young women to pursue careers in law and break stereotypes about leadership roles.
Experts suggest that several reforms can help improve the representation of women in the judiciary.
One proposed solution is gender-based affirmative action, where a certain percentage — for example, around 30 percent — of judicial positions could be reserved for women, particularly in district courts and High Courts.
Another recommendation is to ensure that all judicial selection committees include at least one woman member. This would help bring diverse perspectives into the evaluation process and reduce unconscious bias during appointments.
Some scholars also suggest encouraging lateral entry of women from academia into the judiciary. Experienced law professors and legal scholars could be appointed as judges in specialized tribunals or mid-level judicial posts, thereby expanding the pool of eligible women candidates.
Improving work-life balance is another key area. Experts recommend establishing childcare facilities within court complexes, introducing flexible working arrangements for women lawyers and judges, and ensuring that maternity leave policies do not negatively affect career progression.
Providing better infrastructure in court complexes is also essential. Basic facilities such as clean and separate washrooms, retiring rooms, and safe working environments can make a significant difference in retaining women in litigation practice.
Another important step is regular gender sensitization training for judges, court staff, and legal professionals. Such programs can help address unconscious bias and create a more respectful environment within the judicial system.
Mentorship programs are also seen as an effective way to support women in the legal profession. Senior women judges and lawyers can guide younger female professionals, helping them navigate institutional barriers and build successful careers.
As India celebrates International Women’s Day, the conversation around women’s representation in the judiciary highlights both progress and persistent challenges. While the presence of women in the lower judiciary has increased over the years, their path to higher judicial offices remains limited.
Ensuring greater gender diversity in courts is not only a matter of equality but also essential for strengthening public trust in the justice system. A judiciary that reflects the diversity of society is better equipped to deliver fair, inclusive, and balanced justice.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Women Leaders
