This article offers an empirical account of how the higher judiciary in India continues to exclude women in ways that are structural, cumulative, and intersectional. Using official records from the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Department of Justice, the study traces how women are not only excluded from judicial appointments, but also systemically discriminated during their entire life-cycle in the higher judiciary. The findings show that entry routes matter: women are far less likely to be elevated from the Bar than men and face higher rates of nonconfirmation even when recommended. Later appointments further compress women’s tenure on the bench, narrowing pathways to leadership roles such as collegium membership, chief justiceship, and elevation to the Apex Court. These patterns are compounded by near-invisibility of women from caste and religious minorities, underscoring how gendered exclusion intersects with wider hierarchies to constrain representational diversity. The data demonstrates that incremental gains in headcount do not translate into influence unless appointment ages, source pathways, and confirmation practices change. The article argues that meaningful reform requires institutionalising gender inclusion as a criterion, ensuring parity in bar elevations, and aligning appointment ages to equalise prospects for seniority. Without such measures, the judiciary’s promise of equal justice will be undermined by persistent gatekeeping that limits women’s access to the constitutional courts in the country, especially for those at the intersections.
Kothari et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: