The recent elevation of Justice Sunita Agarwal to the Supreme Court of India on October 6, 2026 , has once again brought the issue of gender representation in the nation’s highest judicial institution into sharp focus. As only the thirteenth woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court in its history, Justice Agarwal’s arrival underscores a persistent historical trend of underrepresentation. While her appointment increased the number of women judges on the bench from two to three, the total percentage of female representation remains a mere 8.1 percent of the current working strength of 37 judges. This development serves as a catalyst for a broader, ongoing examination of the Collegium system and its efficacy in fostering diversity within the constitutional courts .

The debate over proportionality is not merely a matter of statistics; it is rooted in the belief that the legitimacy of public institutions relies heavily on their ability to reflect the diversity of the society they serve. When the judiciary remains predominantly male at its highest levels, questions regarding institutional diversity and the resultant public confidence in the administration of justice inevitably arise. The current demographic breakdown of the higher judiciary suggests that despite the significant entry of women into the legal profession at the grassroots level, a “glass ceiling” persists that becomes increasingly difficult to penetrate as one approaches the constitutional courts .

Mapping the Disparity Across High Courts

Data provided by the Ministry of Law and Justice offers a stark illustration of how this representation gap varies across different levels of the judicial system. As of February 2025 , women accounted for approximately 38 percent of the subordinate judiciary , with 7,852 female officers against a sanctioned strength of 25,886. In some states, such as Goa, Meghalaya, and Nagaland, this percentage reaches as high as 60 to 70 percent. This base-level data indicates that there is no dearth of qualified women entering the legal services , particularly when entry is determined by objective, merit-based competitive examinations .

However, the contrast becomes extreme at the level of the High Courts . A report from the Ministry of Law and Justice , dated February 2, 2026 , revealed that of the 814 working judges across the various High Courts , only 116 were women. The distribution is highly uneven: while the Punjab and Haryana High Court counts 18 women among its 61 judges, and the Bombay High Court has 12 of 80, several other courts are severely lacking. The High Courts of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and Patna have only two women judges each. Even more concerning are the High Courts of Meghalaya, Odisha, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh, each of which retains only one woman judge. Furthermore, the High Courts of Manipur, Tripura, and Uttarakhand have zero female judges, a figure that remains a subject of intense professional discussion.

Institutional Introspection and the Collegium

The discussion around these figures has moved from academic circles into the halls of the Supreme Court itself. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court , recently addressed these systemic concerns during the 12th convocation of the University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya . He explicitly noted that the current composition of the bench does not reflect the actual proportion of women in the legal profession or the wider country.

Justice Bhuyan’s proposed intervention addresses the procedural heart of the issue: the composition of the Collegium. “Since the Collegium remains predominantly male, a woman judge should be invited to participate in its proceedings,” he remarked. The argument is that the inclusion of a woman judge in the selection process would provide a more accurate representation of the realities faced by practitioners at the Bar, leading to more inclusive deliberations. By diversifying the decision-making body, the judiciary could potentially identify talent through a wider lens, recognizing professional trajectories that might otherwise go overlooked by a less diverse group.

Structural Barriers and the Legal Pyramid

Beyond the composition of the Collegium, practitioners and observers point to the underlying class structure of the legal profession . Building an independent practice in India often requires significant financial security, established networks, and years of visibility, which poses a unique challenge for first-generation women lawyers . These individuals often face additional burdens, including social expectations and domestic responsibilities, that can derail a career in private practice .

The subordinate judiciary , therefore, serves as a crucial, stable career path for many talented women who are attracted to the structure of competitive service. Justice Bhuyan observed that while women’s entry into Grade III judicial services is often above 50 percent, this figure drops to roughly 25 to 30 percent at the Grade I level. This decline indicates that representation falls sharply precisely when selection processes transition from objective criteria to more subjective appraisals. This transition point is where systemic biases, whether intentional or inherited, are most likely to take effect.

The challenge for the Indian judiciary is to determine how to leverage the talent already present at the base of the judicial pyramid. The subordinate judiciary , which already boasts a significant number of experienced and competent women judicial officers, represents an untapped reservoir of talent for the High Courts . A shift in focus toward these officers, combined with greater transparency in the elevation process , could bridge the gap between the diverse base of the profession and the homogenous top.

The question currently facing the legal community is not whether the Collegium system is fundamentally failing women, but rather whether it is sufficiently adaptive to ensure that qualified women have a fair opportunity to rise through every tier of the judicial hierarchy . As the debate continues, the focus is likely to remain on institutional introspection and the necessity of sustained attention toward the career progression of women, both from the Bar and from the ranks of judicial officers. For now, the disparity remains a subject of active concern, awaiting a procedural shift that moves beyond symbolic appointments toward a truly diverse constitutional bench.