Why women are missing from India’s higher judiciary | Sudha Ramalingam interview

India’s higher judiciary is “not based on only merit” and is shaped by “connections” and personal networking, senior advocate Sudha Ramalingam said, arguing that this is a key reason women remain severely under-represented in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Federal spoke to her on why women are more visible in the lower judiciary, why this representation does not translate into higher appointments, and whether reforms—including reservations—are now inevitable.

What explains the low number of women judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court?

The gap is mainly because appointments in the higher judiciary are through the collegium system, and it is not based only on merit. It is based on various other things—your connections and the way you can do your own PR and get there.

In the High Courts, we should also look at how many are promoted from the lower judiciary. Many women enter the lower judiciary through exams and merit, so ideally more women should be promoted from district judge level to the High Courts.

But for those appointed directly from the Bar, women are far fewer. There is no promotion system from the Bar, and the substantial portion of judges coming from the Bar are mainly men, not women. Women do not have that kind of stepping stone—getting connected and being appointed.

Why do women appear in larger numbers in the lower judiciary?

Because there is a merit system. In the lower judiciary, you write examinations and pass. There is no other methodology.

If you look at exam results—school or graduation—you often find women scoring better. Likewise, for the judiciary, there are exams conducted, and women score well and get appointed as judges in the lower courts, including district level. They compete equally with men, and on merit they come up.

That is why, when High Courts appoint from the lower judiciary—promoting district judges—you will find more women. But the Bar route does not work the same way.

Should there be reservations for women in higher judiciary appointments?

At the rate at which we are getting appointed, I think we do need it, and we need it early.

The framers of the Constitution may not have thought it necessary for the higher judiciary. They might have expected common sense and rationality to prevail. But today, it looks more political and influenced by extraneous grounds.

Courts have already pushed a form of representation even in Bar Council and Bar Association elections—women have to be accommodated in certain numbers. If that can be done there, why not for the judiciary?

We have many women who are competent to be appointed as High Court and Supreme Court judges. Yet many High Courts have zero or negligible women judges.

How does the absence of women affect justice delivery?

It means there can be less sensitivity on matters relating to women.

Proportional representation brings balance in the views of the judiciary itself. The justice delivery system should not be only male-oriented. That is why representation matters—whether it is for OBCs, BCs, marginalised groups, or others.

Women are 50% of the population. You cannot say their voice will not be heard. Their voices ought to be there in the judiciary.

Will more women judges automatically change outcomes?

There is no magic. I do not attribute special powers to women. But a perspective—women’s perspective—may come better.

For example, Justice Prabha Sridevan has spoken about how the role of women at home should be considered while calculating compensation in accident cases—recognising a contribution that is often ignored. But it is not only women who should speak for women; women judges need to be present in proportionate numbers. There are no miracles—let’s be pragmatic.

Where should reforms begin?

First, there has to be willingness within the judiciary.

For High Court appointments, the Chief Justice of the state High Court and the two senior-most judges pick and choose names and recommend them. For the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India and the senior-most judges pick and choose and recommend elevations. The appointment then comes through the President.

Unless the appointing authorities are sensitised and feel the real need, there will not be significant change.

That is why ideas like a national-level judicial appointments process—through a commission, like IAS/IPS through UPSC—keep coming up. But there is resistance. People at higher places often want to continue the status quo and keep prerogatives shaped by prejudices.

What about caste representation in the higher judiciary?

We are a country polarised by people from the higher caste—whether in politics, judiciary, or other places.

Wherever there is a route through nepotism or other means, those with power or access to power can climb easily. Those without that run find it difficult. That is why reservation exists—why the Constitution speaks about equality and provides for reservation. If equal representation does not come through ordinary means, then reservation there also has to be considered.

How do you assess Justice BV Nagarathna, currently the only woman judge in the Supreme Court?

Justice Nagarathna is one of the finest judges we can see. She has been bold enough to give very good judgements, including dissenting judgements—she gave a dissent on demonetisation.

She does not support women just because she is a woman. In matrimonial disputes, she emphasises that criminal law should not be abused and that laws should not be misused to file false complaints or involve relatives who are not part of the dispute.

She speaks about accountability, corruption, transparency—her judgements are insightful and thoughtfully reasoned. We should not look at her only as a woman judge. We should look at judges as judges, bringing fresh air and fresh thoughts.

She may become the first woman Chief Justice of India, but only for a very short period because of age restrictions.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.