Nclusion in he judiciary

Ramana has stirred a much-needed ate on gender and the legal system

amenting the inadequate number of women judges in courts across India, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), NV Ramana, on Saturday, said that he would prefer at least 50% representn of women in the judiciary at all levels. The CJI nowledged that it was only with “great difficulty” t the Supreme Court (SC) had achieved a “mere” representation of women on the bench, and said t the issue of representation of women must be hlighted and deliberated” upon. Justice Ram’s comments have highlighted a serious, ctural lacunae in India’s legal system — the er-representation of women on the bench. ut of the sanctioned strength of 34 judges, the SC four women judges — Justices Indira Banerjee, a Kohli, BV Nagarathna and Bela M Trivedi, ee of whom were elevated only last week. This is highest-ever number of women judges in the SC’S ory, with Justice Nagarathna in line to become first woman CJI in 2027. But the story of incremal inclusion itself is a testimony to the history and ity of exclusion. According to government data, of 677 sitting judges in both the SC and high rts, only 81 are women, a disappointing 12%. ile there is greater gender representation at the er levels of the judiciary, there is a near uniform d of the proportion of women judges decreasing ne moves up the tiers of the court, says a 2020 ort by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. This is to a range of reasons. Women have to negotiate ltiple obligations; it is harder to meet the minimcriteria of seven years of continuous practice to ligible to be a district judge; fewer women are in ation, reducing the pool from which women ges can be selected; and, perhaps most importly, the collegium system suffers from inherent ses, for progression in the legal profession is much a product of old, often all-male, networks, n other areas. o be sure, there is no evidence to suggest that only men judges are likely to give gender-sensitive gments. But higher numbers and greater visibility omen in courts can reduce inherent systemic dness to questions of gender. It can give women necessary confidence to seek justice and enforce r rights through the courts. It can open the door alternative, inclusive legal perspectives and rpretations. And it will enhance the legitimacy of judiciary, for inclusion creates a wider sense of nership in the wider community. Beyond gender, holds true in the case of other marginalised ments too, whose representation must increase. Ramana has kicked off an important debate.