Explore the inspiring journeys of 11 woman judges of the Supreme Court of India, from Justice Fathima Beevi to B.V. Nagarathna, shaping the future of empowering justice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: From the groundbreaking appointment of Justice Fathima Beevi, the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court bench, to Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who is set to become the first woman Chief Justice of India, their legacies echo the evolving role of women in the highest rank of justice.
The journey of women to the highest bench of justice in India has been one of perseverance, quiet strength, and landmark firsts. In a judiciary long dominated by men, these 11 women judges of the Supreme Court have emerged as pioneers, bringing with them not only legal brilliance but also a transformative presence. Their rise reflects a broader shift in India’s legal landscape, where inclusion, equality, and constitutional values are finding new champions in the form of these remarkable jurists.
Justice Fathima Beevi (1989–1992)
Justice M. Fathima Beevi, a pioneering figure in the Indian judiciary, has been honored with the Padma Bhushan. In 1989, she made history as the first woman judge of the Supreme Court of India and the first Muslim woman in the higher judiciary in Asia.
Born in Kerala in 1927, she began her legal career after topping the Bar Council exam in 1950, becoming the first woman to receive the Bar Council gold medal. Her rise through the judiciary included roles as district judge, High Court judge, and, eventually, Supreme Court judge. Though her tenure on the apex court was brief, it opened doors for countless women in law.
Following her retirement in 1993, she served on the National Human Rights Commission and later as Governor of Tamil Nadu. Her decision to reject mercy pleas in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case reflected her firm commitment to justice.
Justice Beevi passed away in November 2023 at the age of 96. Her legacy as a pathbreaker in a male-dominated field continues to inspire generations of women in the legal profession.
Justice Fathima Beevi’s judicial legacy includes several landmark rulings that reinforced constitutional principles and women’s rights.
In Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986), she played a role in affirming the equal inheritance rights of women in their father’s property, marking a progressive shift in personal laws.
In Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung (1991), she held that any agreement contrary to public policy is unlawful, emphasizing that public policy is a dynamic principle shaped by societal needs.
Her ruling in Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India (1992) clarified that legislative declarations under Article 39 cannot shield laws from judicial scrutiny if they lack constitutional alignment.
Lastly, in Scheduled Caste & Weaker Section Welfare Association. v. State of Karnataka (1997), she upheld the principle that arbitrary state action violates natural justice, asserting that the duty to act judicially is inherent wherever state power affects individual rights.
Justice Sujata V. Manohar (1994–1999)
Justice Sujata Vasant Manohar (born August 28, 1934) had a distinguished legal career marked by several pioneering roles in the Indian judiciary. Educated at Elphinstone College, Bombay, and Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, she was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn, London, and enrolled as an advocate in 1958. She began her legal practice on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court and served as Assistant Government Pleader in 1970–71.
She was appointed an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court in January 1978 and became a permanent judge later that year. In 1994, she was appointed Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and later that same year transferred as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court. On November 8, 1994, she was elevated to the Supreme Court of India, where she served until her retirement on August 27, 1999.
Justice Manohar was known for her liberal and progressive judicial philosophy, particularly in matters of gender justice, constitutional rights, and human dignity. Her judgments were marked by clarity, depth, and a strong adherence to constitutional morality.
Landmark Judgments:
Justice Sujata Manohar was a strong advocate for women’s rights and gender equality, and her judicial work reflected a deep commitment to social justice and progressive legal reform.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), she played a crucial role in laying down guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace, highlighting the need for gender-sensitive work environments.
In C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil (1996), she upheld women’s rights to property under the Hindu Succession Act, reinforcing gender equality in inheritance laws. Beyond gender justice, she also contributed to the field of environmental law, supporting the principles of sustainable development in her judgments.
ALSO READ: 25 Landmark Judgments That Transformed Women’s Rights in India | Women’s Day 2025 Special
Justice Ruma Pal (2000–2006)
Justice Ruma Pal, one of India’s most respected jurists, served on the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2006. Renowned for her intellect, integrity, and commitment to constitutional values, she became a symbol of judicial independence and a champion of gender justice, human rights, and civil liberties.
Born on June 3, 1941, in Kolkata, she was educated at Loreto House and Presidency College, where she studied English literature, before earning her law degree from the University of Calcutta and pursuing further legal studies at the University of Oxford.
Appointed as a judge of the Calcutta High Court in 1989, she earned acclaim for her expertise in civil, constitutional, and commercial law. Her elevation to the Supreme Court in 2000 marked the beginning of a distinguished tenure where her judgments reflected clarity, scholarship, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law.
Justice Pal was known for her fierce independence and principled stance on civil liberties and judicial accountability. After retiring in 2006, she continued to contribute to legal education and judicial reform, leaving behind a legacy that continues to inspire generations of lawyers and judges.
Landmark Judgment:
Justice Ruma Pal’s tenure on the Supreme Court was marked by several influential judgments that left a significant imprint on Indian constitutional, civil, and educational law.
In Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002), she upheld the secular essence of the Constitution by ensuring that religious teachings could not dominate public education. Though not the author, she strongly supported the Vishaka guidelines (1997), which laid the foundation for legal safeguards against workplace sexual harassment.
In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), she emphasized the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, holding that involuntary narco-analysis and similar tests violated individual rights under Article 20(3).
Her judgment in Thomson Press v. Nanak Builders (2003) clarified contractual obligations and strengthened commercial jurisprudence.
In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005), she helped affirm the autonomy of private unaided educational institutions by restricting state interference through reservation policies. These rulings reflect her commitment to civil liberties, constitutional morality, and legal clarity.
Justice Gyan Sudha Misra (2010–2014)
Born on April 28, 1949, into a distinguished family of legal professionals, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra was deeply inspired by her father, former Chief Justice Satish Chandra Misra, and her brother, a senior advocate. A graduate in Law and Political Science from Patna University, she entered the legal profession in 1972, an era when few women chose law as a career.
She began her practice in the Supreme Court, focusing on constitutional, civil, and criminal law. As a government advocate for Bihar, she handled several significant cases involving human rights, gender justice, environmental protection, and compensation for custodial deaths. Her legal acumen also led to her appointment as a member of a Supreme Court fact-finding committee investigating child bonded labor in the carpet industry.
Justice Misra was elevated to the Patna High Court in 1994, later transferred to the Rajasthan High Court, where she held key judicial and administrative roles, including Chairperson of the Legal Services Authority and Advisory Board under the National Security Act. She worked tirelessly to combat social issues such as child marriage, female foeticide, and exploitation of women and children.
Appointed Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court in 2008, she delivered several impactful judgments, including ordering a CBI probe into a high-profile mysterious death case and ruling on election-related disruptions in schools. Her leadership extended internationally, representing India at conferences on women’s and children’s rights.
Justice Misra was elevated to the Supreme Court of India on April 30, 2010, where she served until April 27, 2014. Her tenure on the apex bench was marked by a deep commitment to social justice, gender equality, and empathetic jurisprudence, especially for the marginalized and vulnerable sections of society.
Landmark Judgments:
In Sushil Ansal v. State (2014), related to the Uphaar cinema fire tragedy, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 read with Section 36 of the IPC, and Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. She described the tragedy as an unprecedented catastrophe, likening the cinema hall to a “pitch-dark gas chamber” where 59 people died due to asphyxiation, an outcome of serious negligence by the accused.
In Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), a landmark case on euthanasia, Justice Misra, along with Justice Markandey Katju, ruled that active euthanasia is illegal in India. However, passive euthanasia was deemed permissible under strict conditions, even in the absence of specific legislation. The Court also acknowledged the right of individuals to refuse life-saving treatment, though it left unanswered the question of whether one could legally refuse food to end life.
Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai (2011–2014)
Born on October 30, 1949, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai completed her B.A. from Elphinstone College in 1970 and LL.B. from Government Law College, Bombay, in 1973. She began her legal career the same year, training under Justice Pratap and working alongside her father, Shri S.G. Samant, a renowned criminal lawyer. Her expertise in criminal and civil law led to her appointment as Government Pleader in 1979 and later as Special Public Prosecutor for preventive detention cases in 1986. In 1995, she was appointed Government Pleader on the Appellate Side of the Bombay High Court.
Justice Desai was elevated to the Bombay High Court on April 15, 1996, and subsequently to the Supreme Court of India on September 13, 2011. She retired on October 29, 2014, after over three years on the apex bench. Her tenure was marked by significant contributions to constitutional and criminal jurisprudence.
Post-retirement, she continued to serve the nation with distinction, chairing the Delimitation Commission of India and the Press Council of India. Justice Desai is widely respected for her integrity, administrative capability, and sound legal insight.
Landmark Judgment:
In the Ajmal Kasab case (2012), she was part of the bench that upheld the death sentence for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks convict, emphasizing due process and justice for terrorism victims.
In the Sahara-SEBI case (2012), she authored a significant judgment directing the Sahara Group to return over Rs. 24,000 crore to investors, reinforcing financial accountability and investor protection.
Justice Desai also championed transparency through the Right to Information ruling (2013), where she supported the inclusion of the Chief Justice’s office under RTI, promoting judicial accountability.
In the Mumbai Dance Bars case (2013), she struck down the ban on dance bars, holding it unconstitutional and upholding the right to livelihood, particularly for marginalized women.
Her humanitarian approach was evident in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), where she ruled that undue delays in mercy petitions justified commuting death sentences, reaffirming the principle of human dignity. In a 2013 case involving a mentally challenged rape survivor, she allowed medical termination of pregnancy beyond the 20-week limit, prioritizing the survivor’s mental health and bodily autonomy.
Justice R. Banumathi (2014–2020)
Justice R. Banumathi’s journey through the Indian judiciary is a testament to dedication and merit. Beginning her career as a sessions judge, she steadily rose through the ranks, eventually serving as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court before her elevation to the Supreme Court.
At the apex court, she delivered several important judgments, especially in the areas of criminal law and service jurisprudence. Known for her integrity, disciplined work ethic, and deep understanding of the law, Justice Banumathi’s career is an inspiring example of rising from the trial courts to the highest bench in the country.
Landmark Judgment:
In R. Thirunavukkarasu v. State of Tamil Nadu, she ruled that the accelerated promotions granted to over 1,000 police officers for their role in the operation against Veerappan were one-time promotions and would not have long-term service implications.
In an environmental protection case, Justice Banumathi was part of a bench that imposed a five-year ban on sand mining along the Tamiraparani River. The judgment laid down comprehensive guidelines for sand quarrying across Tamil Nadu and directed the formation of a State-Level Monitoring Committee to oversee sustainable practices.
In K. Muniasamy Thevar v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, she took a strong stance against animal cruelty, ordering a ban on all forms of Jallikattu, bullock cart, and oxen races that caused harm to animals. She also instructed the police to enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act strictly, regardless of cultural or traditional justifications.
Justice Indu Malhotra (2018–2021)
Justice Indu Malhotra made history as the first woman to be directly appointed to the Supreme Court from the Bar in April 2018. A distinguished senior advocate and an authority in arbitration law, she began her legal practice in 1983 and authored the acclaimed commentary The Law and Practice of Arbitration in India (2014). She also served as an arbitrator with the Indian Council of Arbitration and was part of a high-level committee to improve institutional arbitration in India.
As the seventh woman judge of the Supreme Court and the second woman to be designated as a Senior Advocate, Justice Malhotra brought her sharp legal insight and independence to the bench. Her tenure included key judgments and notable dissents, most famously in the Sabarimala case, where she voiced a strong, independent opinion respecting religious autonomy.
She also served on the internal Supreme Court committees addressing sexual harassment and was part of the three-judge panel that investigated allegations against then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
After her retirement, Justice Malhotra continued her public service. She was appointed as Ethics Officer and Ombudsman for the Delhi and District Cricket Association in 2021. In 2022, she headed a Supreme Court-appointed panel to probe the security lapse during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Punjab, ultimately holding the Ferozpur SSP accountable for negligence.
Landmark Judgment:
Justice Indu Malhotra contributed to several pivotal rulings during her tenure at the Supreme Court. In Navtej Singh Johar, she supported the decriminalization of same-sex relationships, stating that history owed an apology to the LGBTQ+ community.
In Joseph Shine, she struck down the adultery law (Section 497 IPC) for violating equality and personal liberty. Notably, in the Sabarimala temple entry case, she delivered the sole dissent, defending the right to religious freedom under Article 25 and questioning the petitioners’ locus standi.
In the Public Interest Foundation, she agreed that courts could not disqualify candidates with criminal charges but urged legislative action.
In Jarnail Singh, she upheld reservations in promotions without requiring proof of backwardness for SC/ST communities, refining affirmative action law.
Justice Indira Banerjee (2018–2022)
Justice Indira Banerjee, the eighth woman to serve on the Supreme Court, brought with her decades of judicial experience from the Calcutta, Delhi, and Madras High Courts, where she also served as Chief Justice. Elevated to the Supreme Court in August 2018, she served until her retirement in September 2022. Known for her commitment to procedural fairness and women’s rights, she participated in several important benches addressing constitutional and civil issues.
Post-retirement, Justice Banerjee has remained engaged in public discourse. In interviews and public events, she has spoken about the systemic challenges faced by women in law and has voiced concern over the misuse of the POCSO Act in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents. In 2023, she joined NUJS Kolkata as a Visiting Professor, continuing her contribution to legal education.
Landmark Judgment:
Justice Indira Banerjee authored several key judgments during her Supreme Court tenure. In Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019), she led a five-judge bench in striking down Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, ruling it unconstitutional for conferring appellate powers on the Supreme Court, a jurisdiction beyond the State Legislature’s competence.
In Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra (2019), she commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment, citing inadequate legal representation and the absence of mitigating factors or consideration for reform.
In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), she concurred that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC has no fixed time limit and need not lapse once the accused appears in court, reaffirming the judiciary’s discretion to set conditions as needed.
Justice Hima Kohli (2021–2024)
Justice Hima Kohli, born on 2 September 1959 in Delhi, began her academic journey at St. Thomas School and went on to earn undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in History from St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University. Initially aiming for the civil services, she pursued an LL.B. from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, where she discovered her passion for law. Enrolled with the Delhi Bar Council in 1984, she trained under notable legal minds, including Sunanda Bhandare and Y.K. Sabharwal, and later established her independent legal practice.
Her public legal career began with her appointment as Standing Counsel for the New Delhi Municipal Council in 1999, followed by her role as Additional Standing Counsel for civil matters for the Government of NCT Delhi in 2004. She also served on the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Elevated as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court in 2006 and made permanent in 2008, she contributed significantly to legal aid and prison reforms. She later became the first woman Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court in 2021. That same year, she was elevated to the Supreme Court along with Justices Nagarathna and Trivedi, marking a milestone in judicial gender representation.
During her tenure at the Supreme Court, Justice Kohli participated in 208 benches and authored 40 judgments, addressing service law, gender equality, and constitutional rights. Known for her balanced approach and compassion, she continues to influence legal thought as Chairperson of the Supreme Court’s Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee and through her association with premier law universities like NALSAR and NUJS.
Landmark Judgment:
Justice Hima Kohli participated in several significant rulings during her tenure on the Supreme Court bench, addressing critical constitutional and social issues.
In the same-sex marriage case (October 2023), she was part of a five-judge Constitution Bench that unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marry for LGBTQIA+ individuals under Indian law. Joining Justice S.R. Bhat’s majority opinion, Justice Kohli held that it was beyond the Court’s role to create new legal or social institutions like same-sex marriage, and upheld the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as intended primarily for interfaith heterosexual marriages.
In another case in October 2023, she delivered a split verdict alongside Justice B.V. Nagarathna on whether a married woman could medically terminate her 26-week pregnancy. While Justice Nagarathna supported the woman’s right to choose, Justice Kohli dissented, citing a medical report suggesting the foetus had a strong chance of survival, and said her “judicial conscience” did not permit termination. The matter was later resolved by a larger bench, which ultimately denied the abortion request, drawing criticism for limiting reproductive rights.
Earlier in May 2023, she was part of the Constitution Bench that unanimously ruled the elected Delhi government has authority over civil services and administrative control, reinforcing the democratic structure of governance in the capital.
In July 2022, Justice Kohli, on a Division Bench, held that confessional statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were inadmissible as evidence, following the precedent set in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), thereby strengthening procedural safeguards for the accused in narcotics cases.
ALSO READ: “75 Years of Women in Law in India, No Woman Lawyer Made AG, SG: Ex-SC Justice Hima Kohli
Justice Bela M. Trivedi (2021–2025)
Justice Bela Trivedi, born on 10 June 1960 in Patan, Gujarat, pursued B.Com and LL.B from Maharaja Sayajirao University, Vadodara. Beginning her legal career in 1983, she practiced civil and constitutional law before joining the judiciary in 1995 as a Judge at the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, where her father also served as a judge, earning them recognition in the Limca Book of Records.
She held several key roles, including Registrar (Vigilance) in the Gujarat High Court, Law Secretary to the Gujarat government (2004–2006), and CBI Court Judge. She also presided over the 2008 Ahmedabad bomb blast trials. After being appointed to the Gujarat High Court in 2011, she later served in the Rajasthan High Court before returning to Gujarat in 2016.
Elevated to the Supreme Court on 31 August 2021, alongside Justices Hima Kohli and B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Trivedi became the eleventh woman in the Court’s history. She has authored 79 judgments and participated in 238 benches. Her tenure is noted for its clarity, rigour, and commitment to procedural justice. She is set to retire on 9 June 2025.
Landmark Judgment:
Justice Bela Trivedi has delivered key opinions on constitutional and criminal matters during her tenure at the Supreme Court. In Attorney General for India v. Satish (2021), she was part of the bench that reversed a controversial Bombay High Court ruling, clarifying that ‘skin-to-skin’ contact is not necessary to constitute sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The Court held that a narrow interpretation would defeat the Act’s purpose.
In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), she wrote a concurring opinion upholding the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Justice Trivedi emphasized that economic criteria are constitutionally valid and the exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs from the EWS quota does not violate equality, as those groups already benefit from other reservation schemes.
In State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki (2022), she was part of a bench that stayed the release of Prof. G.N. Saibaba, a disabled academic charged under UAPA. The Court found fault with the Bombay High Court’s reliance on procedural errors while ignoring merits—a decision that drew public criticism due to its urgency and approach.
In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), Justice Trivedi dissented from the majority view that allowed sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and Tribes. She argued that SCs form a homogenous class and that the Presidential List under Article 341 is final, cautioning that preferential treatment within it could amount to unconstitutional “tinkering” of the list.
ALSO READ: JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Justice B.V. Nagarathna (2021–2027)
Justice B.V. Nagarathna was born on 30 October 1962 in Bengaluru, Karnataka, and is the daughter of former Chief Justice of India E.S. Venkataramaiah. She earned her B.A. in History from Jesus and Mary College, Delhi University (1984), and her LL.B. from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University (1987).
She began her legal career in 1987 at the Bengaluru-based firm Kesvy and Co., and started her independent practice in 1994. She handled a wide array of cases in constitutional, commercial, family, and administrative law, and frequently represented legal aid institutions in Karnataka.
Justice Nagarathna was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2008 and became a permanent judge in 2010. She led the Karnataka Judicial Academy and Bangalore Mediation Centre, and contributed to the Supreme Court’s book Courts of India: Past and Present, including its Kannada translation.
Elevated to the Supreme Court on 31 August 2021, she was part of the historic cohort of three women judges appointed simultaneously. If convention holds, she is set to become India’s first woman Chief Justice on 25 September 2027, serving a 36-day tenure. Justice Nagarathna is widely respected for her strong commitment to constitutional values, gender equality, and judicial independence.
Landmark Judgment:
Justice B.V. Nagarathna has delivered several landmark rulings that reflect her strong commitment to constitutional principles and judicial integrity. In Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India (2024), she authored the judgment striking down the Gujarat government’s remission of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case, holding that only the Maharashtra government, where the trial took place, had the authority to consider remission.
In Neeraj Dutta v State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), she ruled that a public servant can be convicted for bribery based solely on circumstantial evidence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, easing the burden of proof in such cases.
In Kaushal Kishore v State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), she concurred that the restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) are exhaustive and clarified that the State cannot be held vicariously liable for a minister’s personal statements.
In Vivek Narayan Sharma v Union of India (2023), she delivered the sole dissenting opinion in the demonetisation case, stating that although the objectives were legitimate, the Union government’s 2016 demonetisation exercise was unlawful due to procedural irregularities.
ALSO READ: JUSTICE BV NAGARATHNA
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Know Your Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
