Judicial history will be made next year if the seniority principle is followed. Justice BV Nagarathna is set to assume office as the chief justice of India in 2027. Currently, she is the lone woman among the sanctioned strength of 34 judges on the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant.
The presence of just one woman on the highest court reflects poorly on women’s representation in the judiciary, despite the ruling party’s repeated attempts to foreground “nari shakti” as a national priority. Even the landmark appointment of the first woman chief justice is expected to be largely symbolic—Justice Nagarathna’s tenure will last only 36 days.
In a recent judgment, Justice Nagarathna emphasised the need for a sensitive work environment to enable women not only to enter, but also to thrive in the judiciary. Achieving that goal, however, remains a tall order.
Historically, the glass ceiling has been firmly in place. In 1892, Cornelia Sorabji became the first woman to pass the Civil Law examinations at Oxford. Yet, despite qualifying for the Bar, she was not permitted to plead before the Allahabad High Court because the legal profession at the time was restricted to men.
Twenty four years later, in 1916, Regina Guha’s application for enrolment was rejected by a five-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court. “As the law stands, a woman cannot be enrolled as a pleader,” the judges ruled. The profession was governed by the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879, whose Section 5 stated that no person could appear or plead unless “he” had been admitted and enrolled. Although the law never explicitly barred women, the assumption was that the pronoun “he” was literal.
The tide began to turn when legislator Dr Hari Singh Gaur moved to amend the law in the Central Legislative Assembly. This effort culminated in the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act of 1923, which finally allowed women to practise law in India. Cornelia Sorabji went on to become the country’s first woman practising lawyer.
Even then, progress was painfully slow. Anna Chandy became India’s first woman judge in 1937. In 1944, Violet Alva became the first woman advocate to argue before a full bench of a High Court. When Chandy was elevated to the Kerala High Court in 1959, she was only the second woman to reach that level.
Another three decades would pass before the Supreme Court appointed its first woman judge. Justice Fathima Beevi took office on October 6, 1989. “I opened a closed door,” she later said, adding that there was no “scarcity” of competent women in India.
Her optimism, however, proved premature. In the 35 years since, the Supreme Court has seen only 10 additional women judges. In the Court’s 75-year history, only 11 women have served on the bench—an abysmal four percent of the 276 judges appointed so far.
The numbers remain stark. Data published by the Supreme Court in 2023 showed that women constituted 36.3 percent of the district judiciary, but only 14 percent of High Court judges. At one point in 2023, just two women served among 33 Supreme Court judges. Following the retirement of Justice Bela Trivedi, Justice Nagarathna remains the sole woman on the bench.
To address this gap, the Centre for Law and Policy Research has launched a research initiative titled, “Equal Justice: Addressing the Gender Gap in the Higher Judiciary in India”. The project examines systemic discrimination in judicial appointments and aims to develop institutional reforms that could promote equitable representation.
Ironically, the shortage of women judges persists despite the presence of numerous high-profile women lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court. Among them are Karuna Nundy, Zia Mody, Vrinda Grover, Indira Jaising, Pallavi Shroff, Rebecca John, Pinky Anand and Menaka Guruswamy. According to data collected by Bar Councils in 15 states, India had 2,84,507 women advocates in 2023—yet they account for only 15 percent of the legal profession.
The pipeline problem becomes evident in judicial appointments. Supreme Court judges are drawn either from the High Courts or directly from the Bar. High Court appointments are expected to follow a 2:1 ratio: two-thirds from the Bar and one-third from the judicial service. Yet, six High Courts currently do not have a single woman judge elevated directly from the Bar.
Even when women enter the judiciary, structural disadvantages persist. Women lawyers often receive judicial appointments later than men, which affects their seniority and career progression. As a result, women judges are typically elevated to the Supreme Court at a later age and serve shorter tenures—averaging just 4.3 years, below the overall average.
Attempts to improve representation have often amounted to little more than lip service. In Vivya Nagpal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court directed that four Executive Committee posts in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) be reserved for women. In December 2025, the Court invoked Article 142 to mandate 30 percent reservation for women in state Bar Council elections. Yet, these measures have not translated into greater representation in the higher judiciary.
Justice Nagarathna herself has pointed to social realities that derail many women’s legal careers. In an interview with the Supreme Court Observer, she noted that many women leave the profession after marriage or childbirth. “After the birth of the child, the lady advocate must return to the profession,” she said, emphasising that continuity of practice is crucial for judicial elevation.
Institutional barriers can also be more troubling. A female additional district and sessions judge from Madhya Pradesh resigned after being transferred to a Naxal-affected area. She had earlier accused a sitting High Court judge of sexual harassment. Though a Rajya Sabha committee dismissed her complaint for lack of evidence, the Supreme Court later reinstated her, ruling that her resignation had been involuntary.
In another case, a woman judicial officer from the Allahabad High Court wrote to then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud describing the humiliation she faced while pursuing a workplace harassment complaint. The Internal Complaints Committee took six months merely to begin its inquiry—an example critics say reflects institutional apathy.
As Justice Hima Kohli once remarked: “The top court is a lot like the old boys’ club.” Justice Leila Seth, the first woman chief justice of a High Court, described similar challenges in her autobiography On balance, recalling how women judges were expected to be firm-yet-gentle, avoid mistakes, and endure sexist jokes.
Political factors can complicate matters further. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court recently rejected Aam Aadmi Party convenor and former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s recusal plea in liquor policy case. Kejriwal sought her recusal, citing her attendance at a function hosted by an organisation affiliated with the RSS. Amid such diversions, recent recommendations suggest that the Collegium has begun considering factors beyond seniority—such as region, religion and caste—but gender has not been prominently addressed since 2021.
There are, nevertheless, small steps forward. Last year, the Supreme Court inaugurated a creche facility capable of accommodating 100 children in an effort to make the institution more accessible for women. Meanwhile, women now account for over a third of the district judiciary.
Former chief justices have also acknowledged the need for change. DY Chandrachud repeatedly spoke about the lack of diversity in courts. NV Ramana went further, endorsing the idea of 50 percent female participation in the judiciary, describing it as a matter of right rather than charity. As he famously said: “Women of the world unite. You have nothing to lose, but your chains.”
—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine
The post The Long Road To A Woman Chief Justice appeared first on India Legal.