Upper Caste Dominance in Recent Judicial Appointments

In a stark revelation that has reignited debates on social equity within India's higher judiciary, the Union Law Ministry informed Parliament on February 5, 2026, that approximately 73.5% of the 593 judges appointed to High Courts between January 1, 2021, and January 30, 2026, belong to upper castes. This data, shared in response to an unstarred question by Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson, underscores the enduring underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), minorities, and women in the judiciary's upper echelons. While the ministry highlighted modest gains in women's appointments—with 96 female judges elevated during the period—it reiterated constitutional barriers to reservations, emphasizing that selections are exclusively from Supreme Court Collegium recommendations. This disclosure not only spotlights systemic biases in judicial recruitment but also amplifies calls for reform amid persistent vacancies and overburdened courts, potentially reshaping perceptions of judicial impartiality for legal practitioners across India.

The figures paint a concerning picture of homogeneity in a institution meant to embody the nation's diversity. Out of the total appointments, only 26 judges (4.38%) were from the SC category, 14 (2.36%) from ST, 80 (13.49%) from OBC, and 37 (6.23%) from minority communities. The remaining 436 (73.52%) fell under the general or upper caste category. These percentages, derived from self-disclosed social backgrounds of recommendees since a 2018 mandate, reveal a slight dip from earlier data—around 77% upper caste appointments since 2018—but still highlight a glaring disparity. For legal professionals attuned to social justice litigation, this statistic raises profound questions about whether the judiciary truly reflects the pluralistic society it serves, potentially influencing case outcomes in matters involving caste, gender, and minority rights.

Parliamentary Disclosure and Data Breakdown

The information emerged during a routine parliamentary session, where Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal provided a detailed written reply to MP Wilson's query. Wilson had sought specifics on government steps to ensure "social diversity and social representation" in higher judiciary appointments, including breakdowns by SC, ST, OBC, general, women, and minorities since 2021. Meghwal's response was meticulous, breaking down the 593 High Court appointments and noting the absence of centralized category-wise data due to constitutional prohibitions.

This is not the first time such disparities have surfaced. A related 2023 disclosure indicated that about 77% of High Court judges appointed since 2018 were from upper castes, suggesting a slow but insufficient pace of change. The ministry's latest figures include no specific data on Supreme Court appointments, as the query focused primarily on High Courts, though the Collegium's role spans both. For context, the total sanctioned strength of High Court judges stands at 1,122, with only 814 currently in position as of January 30, 2026—a vacancy rate that exacerbates the diversity issue by limiting opportunities for broader representation.

Legal analysts point out that while the numbers are sobering, they stem from a process designed to prioritize merit over quotas. Yet, critics argue this "merit" is often viewed through an elite lens, perpetuating exclusion. The inclusion of 96 women judges is a positive note, representing about 16% of appointments, but it pales against global benchmarks for gender parity in judiciaries, such as those in the U.S. or European courts.

The Collegium System and Constitutional Constraints

At the heart of this issue lies the collegium system, a unique Indian innovation born from landmark Supreme Court judgments in the 1990s. Under the Second Judges Case (1993) and Third Judges Case (1998), the judiciary wrested primacy in appointments from the executive, establishing a collegium of senior judges to recommend candidates for the Supreme Court and High Courts. Articles 124 (Supreme Court), 217 (High Courts), and 224 (additional judges) of the Constitution outline the qualifications—citizenship, experience, and fitness—but explicitly bar reservations, viewing the higher judiciary as a merit-based domain immune to affirmative action.

The ministry's reply firmly underscored this: "the Constitution does not provide for reservation in appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 124, 217 and 224." As a result, category-wise tracking was not routine until 2018, when, in consultation with the Supreme Court, a prescribed format was introduced for recommendees to disclose their social backgrounds voluntarily. This self-reporting forms the basis of the data presented, revealing the ministry's hands-off approach: "appointments are made only from among candidates recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium."

For constitutional lawyers, this setup creates a tension between judicial independence—enshrined to shield against political interference—and the democratic imperative for inclusivity. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), struck down in 2015's Fourth Judges Case, aimed to balance this but was deemed violative of the basic structure doctrine. Today's revelations may fuel renewed scrutiny, perhaps through public interest litigations (PILs) urging the Collegium to adopt diversity as a merit criterion, akin to how some jurisdictions weigh regional or experiential balance.

Efforts Toward Social Diversity

Despite constitutional limits, the government has not remained passive. Meghwal's response detailed ongoing requests to Chief Justices of High Courts to "give due consideration to candidates from SC, ST, OBC, minority communities and women to enhance social diversity." The initiation of proposals rests with the Chief Justice of India for Supreme Court vacancies and High Court Chief Justices for their courts, funneling through the Collegium for final endorsement.

However, these exhortations appear to yield limited results, as evidenced by the persistent upper caste skew. The modest uptick in OBC (13.49%) and minority (6.23%) representations suggests some responsiveness, but SC and ST figures remain alarmingly low—4.38% and 2.36%, respectively—far below their population proportions (around 16.6% for SC and 8.6% for ST per the 2011 Census). Women's appointments, while increasing, still hover below 20% in many High Courts.

Legal professionals advocating for diversity often cite international models, such as South Africa's post-apartheid judicial transformation or Canada's emphasis on equity in appointments. In India, bar associations and activists have long pushed for transparent criteria incorporating social backgrounds, arguing it aligns with the Preamble's justice and equality goals without mandating quotas.

The Debate on Regional Benches

Wilson's query also touched on structural reforms, specifically the establishment of Supreme Court regional benches to decentralize justice. The ministry referenced Article 130, which vests the Chief Justice of India with discretion, subject to presidential approval, to designate sitting locations beyond Delhi. Historical recommendations abound: The 10th and 11th Law Commissions proposed dividing the Supreme Court into a Delhi-based Constitutional Court and regional appeals courts, while the 18th Commission suggested four Cassation Benches alongside a Constitutional Bench.

Yet, the government noted a firm judicial rebuff: "the Supreme Court Full Court, in its meeting held on February 18, 2010, found no justification for setting up benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi." This stance persists, with a 2016 writ petition on a National Court of Appeal referred to a Constitution Bench, where it remains sub judice. Proponents argue regional benches would improve access for litigants from distant states, indirectly aiding diversity by exposing the Collegium to varied candidates. Opponents, including the Full Court, fear fragmentation of precedent and dilution of the Supreme Court's apex authority.

This unresolved debate intersects with diversity concerns, as a centralized Delhi-focused court may inadvertently favor urban, upper-caste networks in appointments.

Persistent Judicial Vacancies

Compounding the diversity dilemma are acute shortages in the High Courts. As of January 30, 2026, 308 vacancies plague the system, with sanctioned strength at 1,122 and only 814 judges serving. High Courts like Allahabad (over 100 vacancies), Calcutta, and Madras face severe deficits, leading to mounting pendency—over 40 million cases nationwide.

These gaps strain legal practice, delaying justice and overburdening sitting judges. For advocates and litigators, it means protracted trials and appeals, eroding efficiency. The ministry's data implies that vacancies hinder diversity efforts; fewer appointments mean fewer chances to integrate underrepresented groups. Filling these posts expeditiously, while prioritizing inclusivity, is crucial to restoring balance.

Implications for the Indian Judiciary

The Law Ministry's disclosure carries weighty implications for constitutional law and judicial ethics. Legally, it reinforces Article 14's equality principle but exposes gaps in its application to institutional composition. A homogenous bench risks blind spots in interpreting laws on reservation, discrimination, or federalism, potentially skewing outcomes in sensitive cases like those under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or minority rights.

From a practice standpoint, lawyers from diverse backgrounds may feel sidelined, discouraging entries into the profession from marginalized communities. It also invites ethical debates on whether Collegium opacity contravenes the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). Broader societal impacts include diminished trust: If the judiciary mirrors only a fraction of society, can it deliver transformative justice?

Reform pathways are limited but not impossible. Amending the Constitution for diversity guidelines (without quotas) or enhancing disclosure transparency could help. The sub judice National Court of Appeal matter might open doors to decentralization, fostering regional diversity.

Looking Ahead: Pathways to Reform

fAs India grapples with these revelations, the onus is on the Collegium, government, and bar to collaborate. MP Wilson's query has spotlighted a critical fault line; ignoring it risks further eroding public faith. Legal professionals must advocate for a judiciary that not only upholds the law but embodies the Constitution's egalitarian vision. With vacancies looming and diversity lagging, 2026 could mark a turning point—or a missed opportunity—in building an inclusive higher judiciary.