Only 11 Women Judges in 75 Years: Is India's Judiciary Failing Diversity?

A Historic Appointment That Also Raises Uncomfortable Questions

On June 2, 2026, advocate Venkata Subramani Mohana from Coimbatore took oath as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. The appointment was historic for more than one reason. She became the first woman in five years to be elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court. Her elevation also increased the working strength of the Supreme Court to 37 judges.

At first glance, this appears to be a moment of celebration for gender representation in India's highest court. However, beneath the symbolism lies a deeper and more troubling reality. In the 75 year history of the Supreme Court, only 11 women have ever served as judges.

That number alone raises an important question: Is India's judicial appointment system structurally incapable of delivering diversity?

For UPSC aspirants, this development sits at the intersection of Polity, Governance, Social Justice, Constitutional Institutions, and Judicial Reforms. It offers a timely opportunity to examine not only the significance of Justice Mohana's appointment but also the larger debate surrounding representation in the Indian judiciary.

Why Justice V. Mohana's Appointment Matters

The appointment of Justice V. Mohana is significant because direct elevations from the Bar to the Supreme Court are relatively rare.

Traditionally, most Supreme Court judges are elevated from High Courts after serving as judges for several years. Direct appointments from the Bar are intended to bring experienced advocates with distinguished legal careers into the judiciary.

The Constitution permits such appointments under Article 124(3), which states that a person can be appointed as a Supreme Court judge if they have been an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years or have served as a High Court judge for at least five years.

Justice Mohana's elevation is noteworthy because it breaks a five year gap during which no woman advocate was directly elevated to the Supreme Court. It also highlights how infrequently women receive opportunities at the highest levels of judicial appointments.

While the appointment is undoubtedly a positive step, it also draws attention to how exceptional such events remain.

The Numbers Reveal a Serious Diversity Deficit

The Supreme Court was established in 1950.

Since then, only 11 women have served as judges in the apex court.

To understand the scale of the issue, consider the following:

• More than 270 judges have served in the Supreme Court since its inception.
• Women constitute a significant share of law graduates entering the profession today.
• Yet representation at the highest judicial level remains extremely limited.

The issue extends beyond the Supreme Court.

Across High Courts, women continue to remain underrepresented. Several High Courts have historically had single digit percentages of women judges. Some have experienced periods with no women judges at all.

The disparity becomes even more striking when viewed against India's broader constitutional commitment to equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

If equal opportunity is a constitutional value, why does the judiciary continue to lag behind other institutions in gender representation?

Understanding the Collegium System

Any discussion about judicial diversity inevitably leads to the collegium system.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention the collegium. Instead, the system evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments known as the Three Judges Cases.

Under the current arrangement:

• The Chief Justice of India and the four senior most Supreme Court judges form the Supreme Court collegium.
• The collegium recommends appointments and transfers of judges.
• The executive government can raise objections but cannot permanently block a recommendation if it is reiterated.

The collegium was designed to protect judicial independence by reducing political interference in appointments.

However, critics argue that while the system protects independence, it has struggled to ensure transparency, accountability, and diversity.

The appointment of judges largely depends on internal consultations and institutional preferences that are often not publicly disclosed.

As a result, many observers describe the process as opaque.

The Diversity Problem Within the Collegium

One of the biggest criticisms of the collegium system is that diversity has never been treated as a formal selection criterion.

Appointments often prioritize factors such as:

• Seniority
• Judicial experience
• Professional reputation
• Regional representation

While these factors are important, there has been no systematic mechanism to ensure adequate representation of women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities, or persons from disadvantaged backgrounds.

This has led to a recurring criticism that the judiciary often reproduces existing elite networks.

Many judges come from legal families, urban backgrounds, or established professional circles. While merit remains essential, the absence of structured diversity considerations has limited opportunities for many qualified candidates.

Justice Mohana's appointment demonstrates that women can and do reach the highest levels of the judiciary. The larger concern is why such appointments remain rare rather than routine.

The NJAC Debate Returns

The discussion surrounding judicial diversity inevitably revives memories of the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

In 2014, Parliament passed the Constitution Amendment creating the NJAC.

The objective was to replace the collegium with a commission consisting of members from both the judiciary and the executive.

Supporters argued that the NJAC would:

• Increase transparency
• Improve accountability
• Broaden representation
• Reduce institutional insularity

However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC through a landmark judgment.

The Court held that judicial independence forms part of the Constitution's basic structure and that the NJAC could compromise that independence.

As a result, the collegium system was restored.

The verdict remains one of the most significant constitutional decisions of recent times.

Yet the concerns that motivated the NJAC have not disappeared. Questions about transparency and diversity continue to surface whenever judicial appointments are discussed.

Can Judicial Independence and Diversity Coexist?

The debate is often framed as a choice between independence and reform.

However, this may be a false binary.

Judicial independence is unquestionably essential for constitutional democracy. Courts must remain free from political pressure and executive influence.

At the same time, diversity strengthens judicial legitimacy.

A judiciary that reflects broader social experiences is often better equipped to understand complex issues involving gender, caste, discrimination, labour rights, and social justice.

Diversity does not weaken merit.

Instead, it broadens the pool from which merit is identified.

The real challenge is designing a system that preserves independence while improving representation.

Should India Introduce a Statutory Diversity Mandate?

One proposal gaining attention is the idea of a statutory diversity mandate for judicial appointments.

Such a framework would not necessarily impose rigid quotas. Instead, it could require appointment authorities to actively consider diversity while making selections.

Possible measures could include:

• Publishing diversity data for judicial appointments
• Establishing measurable representation goals
• Expanding the pool of candidates considered for elevation
• Increasing transparency in selection criteria
• Creating periodic diversity audits

Countries such as the United Kingdom have experimented with institutional mechanisms aimed at improving judicial diversity while maintaining professional standards.

India may eventually need to consider similar approaches.

The objective would not be symbolic representation alone. A more diverse judiciary can enhance public trust and improve the quality of judicial decision making.

Why This Matters for Governance and Social Justice

The judiciary is not merely another branch of government.

It is the institution responsible for protecting fundamental rights, reviewing executive actions, and interpreting constitutional values.

When large sections of society remain underrepresented within the judiciary, concerns naturally arise about inclusiveness and institutional legitimacy.

Representation matters because courts frequently decide issues affecting:

• Women's rights
• Reservation policies
• Minority protections
• Labour rights
• Gender justice
• Access to education
• Social welfare schemes

A judiciary that reflects a broader range of experiences is better positioned to appreciate the real world impact of its decisions.

This is why the issue extends beyond appointments and enters the realm of democratic governance.

The UPSC Perspective

For UPSC aspirants, Justice V. Mohana's appointment offers a rich case study that connects multiple dimensions of the syllabus.

Relevant areas include:

GS Paper II

• Judiciary and judicial reforms
• Separation of powers
• Constitutional bodies and institutions
• Transparency and accountability
• Representation and inclusiveness

Essay Paper

Possible themes include:

• Diversity and democracy
• Judicial reforms in India
• Representation in constitutional institutions
• Balancing independence and accountability

Interview Perspective

Candidates may be asked whether judicial appointments should prioritize diversity and how such reforms can be implemented without compromising merit or independence.

Understanding both sides of the debate will be essential.

Conclusion

Justice V. Mohana's elevation to the Supreme Court is unquestionably a landmark moment. It deserves recognition as a significant achievement for gender representation within India's judiciary.

Yet celebrations should not obscure the larger reality.

When only 11 women have served as Supreme Court judges in 75 years, the issue is no longer about isolated appointments. It is about systemic patterns.

The collegium system was created to safeguard judicial independence, but its record on diversity remains difficult to defend. The NJAC debate may have been settled legally, but the underlying concerns about transparency and representation continue to persist.

The real question facing India today is not whether diversity matters in the judiciary. It is whether the current appointment system possesses the institutional capacity and willingness to achieve it.

Justice Mohana's appointment may be historic, but history will ultimately judge whether it was an exception or the beginning of a broader transformation in India's judicial landscape.