Diversity In Judiciary

Context

• A Private Member Bill was introduced by Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson. The Bill proposes constitutional amendments to enhance diversity in higher judicial appointments. 
• It also recommends establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court. 
• The bill thus seeks to institutionalise inclusivity alongside preservation of judicial independence.

Constitutional Provisions Related to Judicial Independence

• Article 124 provides for appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President. The President appoints judges after consulting the Chief Justice of India.
• Article 217 governs appointment of judges to High Courts. The consultations include the CJI, State Governor, and concerned High Court Chief Justice.
• Article 130 designates Delhi as the permanent seat of the Supreme Court. The Court may sit elsewhere with CJI approval and consent of the Union government.

Challenges Faced by Judiciary

• Diversity Deficit in Higher Judiciary
  • Higher judiciary appointments insufficiently reflect India’s vast social diversity.
  • Between 2018–2024, only around 20% judges belonged to SC, ST, and OBC communities.
  • Representation of women remained below 15% in higher judicial appointments.
  • Religious minorities constituted less than 5% of judges in higher judiciary.
• Accessibility and Structural Constraints
  • The Supreme Court currently functions only from New Delhi. Thus the geographical centralisation restricts physical access for distant litigants.
  • High travel and litigation costs deter economically weaker citizens. 
  • Further the Case pendency exceeds 90,000 matters as of January 2026.
  • Centralised functioning burdens judicial efficiency and timely justice delivery.

Way Forward

• Institutionalising Judicial Diversity
  • Diversity must be consciously prioritised within collegium recommendations.
  • Constitutional backing can institutionalise inclusive judicial representation.
  • Reviving NJAC with broader stakeholder participation remains a reform option.
  • Comparative models from South Africa and the United Kingdom offer institutional lessons.
  • Inclusion of Bar, academia, and civil society can broaden consultations.
• Enhancing Access to Justice
  • Regional benches can significantly enhance access to justice.
  • Decentralisation may reduce litigation costs and pendency burdens.
  • Parliamentary Committees and the Law Commission have supported such reforms.
  • The Court may begin with one regional bench initially  and gradual expansion can follow administrative feasibility assessments.

Collegium vs NJAC Debate

• Initially, judicial appointments were executive-led with consultative judicial participation.
• First Judges Case (1981)
  • Upheld executive primacy in appointments.
  • Concerns emerged regarding political interference affecting judicial independence.
• Second Judges Case (1993) created the Collegium System.
• Third Judges Case (1998)
  • Reaffirmed judicial primacy in appointments.
  • The collegium includes the CJI and senior-most Supreme Court judges.
  • The system insulated appointments from executive pressures.
• However, it faces criticism for opacity and limited accountability.
• Allegations of nepotism and favouritism continue to surface.

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

• Parliament enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014) creating NJAC.
• NJAC included judiciary members, the Law Minister, and eminent persons.
• The Supreme Court struck down NJAC in 2015.
• It held NJAC violated the Basic Structure doctrine of judicial independence.
• Consequently, the collegium system continues for higher judicial appointments.