The Supreme Court Collegium’s new recommendation for elevation to the top court has sparked a fresh debate, not only on the principle of seniority but more sharply on the continuing neglect of senior women judges. At a time when the judiciary acknowledges the need to strengthen gender diversity, the exclusion of highly senior and qualified women judges underscores the persistent glass ceiling within India’s higher judiciary.
Seniority bypassed
Among those overlooked is Justice Sunita Agarwal, currently Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, who was appointed as a judge on November 21, 2011. By all-India seniority, she ranks well above Justice Vipul Pancholi, who has now been recommended. Similarly, Justice Revati Prashant Mohite Dere of the Bombay High Court, appointed on June 21, 2013, and Justice Lisa Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, appointed on March 31, 2014, are also senior to Justice Pancholi.
The Collegium’s decision to pass over these senior women judges once again raises uncomfortable questions.
Record of women’s representation
The Supreme Court has had only 12 women judges in its 75-year history, with the first, Justice M. Fathima Beevi, appointed as late as 1989. Today, out of a sanctioned strength of 34, there is only one woman judge. Time and again, the Collegium has spoken of its commitment to increasing women’s participation in the higher judiciary. Yet, the actual record of appointments shows little substantive progress.
The fact that women have to wait longer for recognition, even when they are more senior, also reflects an invisible ceiling that continues to hold back progress. Younger women entering the bar and judiciary see this pattern, and it sends a discouraging signal: hard work and merit may not be enough to break through systemic barriers.
Why senior women judges matter
The sidelining of women judges has implications beyond the careers of individuals. Representation in the judiciary is not a token gesture but a constitutional necessity. Courts decide issues that directly affect women, ranging from gender-based violence and workplace harassment to property rights and reproductive freedoms. The absence of a strong women’s presence on the Bench not only dilutes perspectives but also weakens public trust in the judiciary as an inclusive institution.
The opacity problem
The Collegium’s functioning adds to the perception of arbitrariness. Its resolutions usually cite broad terms such as merit or integrity, without spelling out why specific names were chosen or why seniors, particularly women, were passed over. If gender diversity is truly a criterion, it ought to be visible in the choices made. Instead, silence from the Collegium leaves the impression that senior women judges are deliberately or negligently excluded.
Transparency would demand that the Collegium articulate reasons, especially when ignoring women with clear seniority. Such reasoning would not only enhance accountability but also demonstrate that diversity is a lived value rather than a rhetorical flourish.
The way forward
If the judiciary is to match its own rhetoric on equality, the Collegium must adopt conscious diversity practices. This includes ensuring every round of appointments considers senior women judges across High Courts. Making gender representation a decisive factor alongside merit and integrity and publishing detailed reasons when senior women are overlooked, to dispel doubts of bias.
The Supreme Court cannot afford to appear indifferent to women’s representation, especially when public trust hinges on its image as a fair and progressive institution. The presence of more women judges is not only about numbers but about shaping jurisprudence that is inclusive, empathetic, and reflective of India’s constitutional values.
Until such steps are taken, every appointment that sidelines senior women judges will remain a reminder of the distance the judiciary still has to travel in breaking its own glass ceiling.