Justice Bhuyan Exposes Stark Gender Disparity in India's Higher Judiciary
Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a powerful critique on Sunday, highlighting a significant contradiction in India's judicial appointments. While women secure more than 50% of judicial officers' posts across states in merit-based selections, only a minuscule fraction are selected as judges of high courts and the Supreme Court under the collegium's subjective assessment criteria.
Merit vs. Subjectivity: The Collegium Scrutiny
Addressing the Supreme Court Bar Association's first national conference in Bengaluru, Justice Bhuyan pointed out that judicial services across states demonstrate excellent representation of women, with some even exceeding the 50% mark. "But has it been replicated in constitutional courts? That is the question," he asserted. "That is where the scrutiny of the collegium system comes in. Why is it that when the assessment becomes subjective, women do not make the grade?"
He provided stark statistics to underscore the disparity:
- Out of 287 Supreme Court judges since 1950, only 11 have been women, amounting to approximately 2%.
- Women constitute merely 14% of high court judges nationwide.
- Among the 25 high courts, only two currently have women chief justices—in Gujarat and Meghalaya—with one more expected to assume the role within a month.
"My research shows that whenever the recruitment process is objective, more women enter the judicial space," Justice Bhuyan emphasized, calling for greater parity in gender representation as India aims to become a developed nation by 2047.
Collegium System Defended Amid Criticisms
Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai acknowledged the imperfections of the collegium system but defended it as the best-suited mechanism for the country at present. He referenced multiple Supreme Court rulings stating that if a person recommended for judgeship in a high court is returned by the government for reconsideration and reiterated by the collegium, the government has no option but to appoint them.
"But there are many instances where even after repeated reiterations, the persons have not been appointed," he noted, highlighting ongoing challenges in the appointment process.
Justice Gavai also outlined broader criticisms faced by the judiciary, including:
- Inability to tackle case arrears and backlogs effectively.
- Delays in the disposal of cases at various levels.
- Lack of transparency in administrative decision-making, particularly in judge appointments.
- Long vacation periods disrupting judicial continuity.
- Insufficient diversity, especially regarding women's representation in constitutional courts.
Historical Context and Judicial Accountability
The former CJI reflected on historical missteps, citing the first major judgment related to the right to life in the A K Gopalan case and the Emergency-era A D M Jabalpur case as examples where the Supreme Court erred. "Criticism is important for any institution, including the judiciary," he asserted, underscoring the need for continuous improvement.
He recalled the inaugural speech of the first CJI, Harilal Jekisondas Kania, who emphasized that the Supreme Court must operate independently of the legislature and executive while interpreting the Constitution as a living document.
Building Trust and Functional Autonomy
Justice Bhuyan stressed that the Supreme Court must earn, not demand, the respect of citizens. "Judicial power relies not just on law but trust and legitimacy. Accountability, integrity, and transparency must be made essential for the judiciary to function effectively in a democratic society," he stated. He highlighted that the judiciary's only asset is the goodwill of the people, as it possesses neither the purse nor the sword.
Looking ahead to a developed India, he advocated for functional autonomy across institutions. "Investigating agencies as well as the media should be able to discharge their duties without any political interference or control," he said, adding that development should align with the directive principles of state policy, ensuring no one, especially historically neglected groups, is left behind.
Justice Bhuyan concluded by envisioning the Supreme Court as a rainbow institution that truly reflects the nation's diversity, calling for systemic reforms to bridge the gender gap and enhance judicial integrity.
