Why This Matters Now
The elevation of Justice V. Mohana to the Supreme Court, only the second woman in the Court’s history to be raised directly from the Bar after Justice Indu Malhotra, has rightly been welcomed. Yet the very fact that such an appointment remains rare enough to merit headlines reveals how far the higher judiciary still is from reflecting the society it serves. As women’s share of law graduates and the subordinate judiciary rises, their near-absence at the apex demands scrutiny of the process that produces judges.
The Crux in 60 Words
Justice V. Mohana’s direct elevation from the Bar is historic but exceptional. Women remain about 4% of Supreme Court judges and under 15% of High Court judges. The opaque Collegium, governed loosely by Articles 124 and 217, offers no diversity commitment or transparent criteria. Symbolic appointments cannot replace systemic reform of how the higher judiciary is built.
The Issue, Decoded
| Element | What it is | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Articles 124 and 217 | Constitutional provisions for appointing Supreme Court and High Court judges | The formal source of appointment power, with the President acting on consultation |
| The Collegium | Judge-led body that effectively selects higher-judiciary judges | Operates without published criteria, making diversity considerations invisible |
| Direct elevation from the Bar | Appointment of a distinguished advocate straight to the Supreme Court | A route that has produced very few women, Justice Mohana being only the second |
| Representation gap | Women near 4% of SC and under 15% of HC judges | Apex bench does not reflect the gender profile of the legal profession or society |
The Analysis: Why the Pipeline Narrows at the Top
- The funnel tightens at every rung. Women are a growing share of law students and the subordinate judiciary, but the proportion falls sharply at the High Court level and again at the Supreme Court.
- The Bar route disadvantages women. Direct elevation rewards decades of high-profile litigation practice, an arena where women have historically faced fewer briefs, smaller networks and structural hurdles.
- Opacity entrenches the status quo. Without published criteria, the Collegium’s choices cannot be tested against any diversity benchmark, so under-representation reproduces itself.
- Symbolism is mistaken for progress. Celebrating individual appointments can mask the absence of any systemic mechanism to ensure them.
Data and Institutions Vault
Carry these into the exam hall.
Article 124: establishment and composition of the Supreme Court and appointment of its judges.
Article 217: appointment and conditions of office of High Court judges.
The Collegium system evolved through the Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998); it is a judicial innovation, not a constitutional text.
NJAC struck down: the National Judicial Appointments Commission was held unconstitutional in 2015 (Fourth Judges Case), preserving the Collegium.
Justice Indu Malhotra (2018) was the first woman elevated directly from the Bar; Justice V. Mohana is the second.
The Debate
The argument for active diversity: A judiciary that mirrors society commands greater legitimacy and brings a wider range of experience to the bench, strengthening gender-justice adjudication. Transparent diversity goals widen the talent pool rather than shrink it.
The argument against: Purists insist appointments must rest solely on merit and seniority, warning that engineering diversity could politicise selection and erode judicial independence.
The balanced verdict: Diversity and merit are not rivals. The real problem is an opaque process that obscures both. Transparent criteria and deliberate pipeline-building can expand the pool of qualified women without diluting standards, and would actually strengthen, not weaken, the bench’s legitimacy.
How to Think About This (Transferable Skill)
Distinguish representation from inclusion. A single high-profile appointment is representation; a process that reliably produces diverse appointments is inclusion. When evaluating any institution’s diversity claims, ask whether the outcome is the product of a system or an exception. Exceptions reassure; systems reform.
Diagram-in-Words
Law schools (rising women) -> subordinate judiciary (substantial women) -> High Courts (under 15%) -> Supreme Court (about 4%)
Reform widens each upward arrow: transparent criteria -> pipeline support -> direct elevation of eminent women -> a representative apex bench
The Way Forward
- Publish transparent appointment criteria so that diversity, alongside merit, becomes a visible and testable consideration.
- Build the pipeline deliberately by mentoring and elevating women in the subordinate judiciary and the Bar.
- Widen direct elevation from the Bar to consider more distinguished women advocates for the higher bench.
- Improve enabling conditions including infrastructure, sittings practice and chambers culture that disadvantage women advocates.
- Track and report diversity data annually to make under-representation a measured, accountable concern.
The Takeaway Box
Mains angle: Use in GS2 polity answers on judicial appointments, the Collegium, and representation as a constitutional value.
Lift line (verbatim): “Counting individual appointments as victories is the surest sign that the system has not changed.”
Prelims hooks: Article 124 (SC), Article 217 (HC), Three Judges Cases, NJAC struck down in 2015, Justice Indu Malhotra as first woman elevated from the Bar.
Ethics/Interview angle: Equity versus formal equality in institutional design, and the responsibility of self-selecting bodies to reflect the public they serve.
PYQ linkage: Connects to past GS2 questions on judicial appointments and the independence-versus-accountability debate.
Connects to: The Collegium versus NJAC debate, judicial reforms, and women’s representation in legislatures and the bureaucracy.
Sources: Indian Express, The Hindu
Source: Breaking the Last Glass Ceiling: On Women in the Higher Judiciary — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
