Back
Justice Mittal Questions on Women Judges Shortage
In a pointed critique that has reverberated through India's legal corridors, Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the
, challenged the
with a rhetorical question:
"Don’t you think there are enough men?"
Her remarks, delivered during a discussion on gender diversity in the judiciary, underscore the glaring underrepresentation of women on the bench. Joined by
, who shared harrowing personal experiences of discrimination, the conversation exposed deep-seated barriers—from client prejudices to institutional biases—hindering women's ascent to judicial roles. As calls grow for transparency in
deliberations and greater professional exposure for female lawyers, this episode highlights a critical juncture for judicial reform in India.
The Catalyst: Justice Mittal's Direct Confrontation
Justice Gita Mittal, a trailblazer known for her progressive judgments on human rights and women's issues during her tenure at the Madras and J&K High Courts, did not mince words. Addressing the —the opaque body comprising senior judges responsible for recommending appointments under —she questioned the persistent gender imbalance. With women comprising only about 13% of High Court judges and just four out of 34 justices as of , her intervention strikes at the heart of a system criticized for lacking diversity metrics.
This moment echoes ongoing debates post the NJAC judgment, where the struck down the , reaffirming primacy but inviting scrutiny over its processes. Justice Mittal's query isn't isolated; it aligns with observations in cases like the Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India ( ), where the court acknowledged the need for more women in judicial ranks to ensure balanced perspectives.
Personal Anecdotes: Raw Realities of Discrimination
The discussion turned visceral when anecdotes of everyday sexism were recounted. Justice Mittal and shared a striking experience from their early careers in senior chambers. As Sarkar recalled verbatim: “An old client came and when I went forward he said ‘are yeh sab ladki wadki mat dijiye’. Then a man colleague went with him. If I had objected then, it would have been the end.”
This incident exemplifies client discrimination, where women lawyers are dismissed outright in favor of male counterparts. Such stories are not relics of the past; they persist, deterring women from building viable practices essential for judicial elevation. Sarkar's testimony extended to broader hurdles: “There is lack of mentoring and they don't get good seniors. Then there is an issue of structural payment. They are asked ‘kitna kama leti ho? Itna toh pocket money dedenge’. So this is another issue. Then comes courtroom bias. Judges have also many times not taken us seriously.”
These barriers—mentorship voids, pay disparities, and judicial attitudes—create a vicious cycle. Women, often balancing family responsibilities, face structural disincentives that men do not, leading to high attrition rates in the legal profession.
Systemic Barriers: A Multifaceted Challenge
Delving deeper, the speakers outlined a triad of obstacles. First, mentorship gaps : Senior advocates, predominantly male, rarely nurture female juniors, limiting exposure to high-stakes litigation needed for consideration. Data from the reveals women constitute ~15% of enrolled advocates but far less at senior levels.
Second, economic inequities : The "pocket money" mindset undervalues women's earnings, forcing many into unstable practices. A study noted female lawyers earn 20-30% less than peers, exacerbated by maternity breaks and client biases.
Third, courtroom biases : Female counsel report being interrupted or dismissed by benches, eroding confidence and opportunities. This judicial insensitivity perpetuates the glass ceiling, as seen in the low elevation rates—only 107 women HC judges out of 1,100+ as of 2024.
These issues intersect with societal norms, where women bear disproportionate caregiving loads, as highlighted in the on women's facilities ( ).
The Collegium System Under Scrutiny
Established through the " ," the operates behind closed doors, with resolutions not publicly disclosed. Critics, including Justice Mittal, argue this opacity enables gender blindness. No mandatory diversity quotas or records track women candidates considered, unlike merit-based transparency in other jurisdictions.
Sarkar proposed: “ record must be maintained so that we know if woman candidates were considered or not.” This echoes demands from the (2018), which urged diversity audits. Without such measures, the system risks homogeneity, potentially biasing outcomes in gender-sensitive cases like domestic violence or property rights.
Calls for Reform: Practical Pathways Forward
Both speakers advocated actionable steps. Sarkar emphasized: “Let women become , arbitrators, government counsel.” Appointing women to these roles— in , arbitrators in commercial disputes, or standing counsel—builds resumes and visibility.
Additional reforms could include: - Mandatory diversity reporting in minutes (anonymized). - Mentorship mandates via bar associations. - Incentives like creches in courts and equal pay norms. - Reservations in judicial academies, piloted in some HCs.
These align with global best practices, such as Canada's judicial advisory committees prioritizing equity.
Broader Context: Gender Diversity in Indian Judiciary
India lags regionally: Pakistan has ~20% women HC judges, Bangladesh ~25%. Historically, Justice Fathima Beevi ( ) was the first woman SC judge; today, Justices BV Nagarathna and Bela Trivedi carry the torch amid slow progress. The 253rd Report ( ) flagged this, yet elevations remain sluggish.
COVID-19 exacerbated exits, with a LiveLaw survey showing 40% women lawyers considering quitting due to workload-family conflicts.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
Under , diversity isn't optional—it's imperative for impartiality. The in Indira Sawhney ( ) endorsed ; applying it to judiciary via guidelines could pass muster. Rejecting NJAC for executive interference, the court must self-regulate.
Analytically, homogenous benches risk skewed jurisprudence, as evidenced by early insensitivity in Nirbhaya case probes. Diverse judges enhance legitimacy, per studies like the American Political Science Review ( ).
Potential Impacts on Legal Practice and Justice System
Reforms could transform practice: More women seniors mean robust mentorship pipelines, reducing attrition and enriching bar talent pools. On the bench, gender-balanced courts promise empathetic rulings in family law, sexual harassment (POSH compliance), and equality petitions.
Long-term, transparency rebuilds public trust, countering "clubby" perceptions. For practitioners, it signals inclusivity, attracting talent amid lawyer shortages.
Path Forward: Urgency for Change
Justice Mittal's salvo and Sarkar's testimonies catalyze momentum. With vacancies at 30% in HCs, the has an opportunity to act. Petitions before the seek disclosure norms; outcomes could redefine judicial architecture.
As India aspires to Viksit Bharat, a gender-equitable judiciary is non-negotiable. Legal professionals must advocate, from bar resolutions to briefs, ensuring "ladki wadki" evolve from slurs to celebrated judges. The question remains: Will the listen?
