Addressing Gender Disparity in the Indian Judiciary: Challenges and Reforms

General Studies Paper 1 (GS1): Indian Society- Role of Women and Women’s Organizations

Introduction

The Indian judiciary faces a significant gender imbalance, especially at higher levels. Despite improvements in entry-level recruitment, women remain underrepresented in High Courts and the Supreme Court. This lack of representation is not just a structural issue; it reflects a broader societal imbalance and impedes a balanced approach to justice, as a judiciary inclusive of diverse perspectives is essential for fair and comprehensive justice delivery.

Statistics on Gender Representation (2023):

1. Supreme Court:
   • Women judges make up only3% of the total.
2. High Courts:
   • Only4% of judges are women.
   • Some stateseither have no women judges or only one.
3. District Courts:
   • 3%of judges at the district level are women, indicating better representation at lower echelons but limited progression to higher levels.

Challenges in the Legal Profession

Women face various structural and societal barriers in the legal field, making it difficult for them to sustain and advance in their careers. These challenges hinder their career progression, causing a “funnel effect” that limits the pool of female candidates available for higher judicial appointments.

Key Challenges:

1. Establishing Presence in Legal Profession:
   • Advocates: Women account for approximately31% of advocates.
   • Senior Advocates and Bar Council Representation: Women have minimal representation assenior advocates or Bar Council members, further narrowing their prospects for judicial appointments.
   • Funnel Effect: The low percentage of female advocates and senior roles restricts the number of women eligible for higher judiciary roles.
2. Retention Issues:
   • Transfer Policies: Current policies often disregard women’sfamily responsibilities and lead to frequent relocations, disrupting career continuity.
   • Support Structures: Limited access tomentorship, networking opportunities, and infrastructural support discourages career growth.
3. Infrastructural Shortcomings:
   • Basic Facilities: Many district courts lackbasic amenities such as dedicated washrooms for women judges and lawyers.
   • Family Support Facilities: Essential facilities likecrèches or feeding rooms are largely unavailable, creating hurdles for women balancing family and work responsibilities.
4. Economic Barriers:
   • Lower Starting Income: Women lawyers often earn less at the start of their careers, which can dissuade them from investing in higher studies or establishing a practice.
   • Lack of Institutional Support: Benefits likematernity leave, stipends, and financial assistance are often unavailable, making it financially challenging for women to establish a foothold in the legal profession.

Policy Gaps and Systemic Hurdles

Entry-Level Challenges:

• Judicial Service Rules: Many states mandate continuous practice for judicial roles, disadvantaging women who take career breaks due to family obligations.

Retention Issues:

• Transfer Policies and Support Structures: Lack of gender-sensitive transfer policies affects the retention of women, especially in higher judiciary roles.

Social Expectations and Cultural Norms:

• Primary Caretakers: Women are often seen as primary caregivers, which limits their ability to pursue demanding roles.
• Flexible Work Options: Limited options for part-time or flexible schedules exacerbate challenges for women.

Public-Private Divide and Gender-Specific Needs

The concept of the public-private divide, proposed by Carole Pateman, illustrates the challenges women face when moving into public spheres like the judiciary, traditionally dominated by men. This divide highlights that existing policies often do not address the specific needs of women, particularly in the judiciary, where gender-sensitive infrastructure and policies are still inadequate.

Gender-Specific Policy Needs:

• Recognition of Unique Requirements: Women need policies that understand their dual roles in society.
• Policy Gaps: The absence of supportive structures in the public domain amplifies gender inequalities.

Broader Impact on Justice Delivery and Societal Perceptions

1. Gendered Perspective in Judgments:
   • Limited Female Voices: When fewer women serve as judges, the judiciary misses out on valuablegender perspectives, particularly in cases related to women’s rights, family law, and sexual harassment.
2. Public Trust and Representation:
   • Diverse Judiciary: Greater diversity promotespublic trust by making the judiciary representative of a broader spectrum of society.
3. Role-Model Effect:
   • Inspiration for Aspirants: More women in the judiciary creates role models for young female law aspirants, promoting a culture ofgender inclusivity.

Female-Centric Judiciary Policies

A female-centric approach to policy-making, sometimes referred to as the “female gaze,” can help address indirect gender biases. This approach involves creating policies and infrastructure that acknowledge and accommodate women’s unique needs in the workplace.

Proposed Reforms:

• Flexible Work Hours: To support women who balance work and family responsibilities.
• Gender-Sensitization Programs: To address unconscious biases within the judiciary.
• Women’s Legal Associations and Mentorship Programs: Encouraging mentorship for professional development.

Global Comparison and Best Practices

Countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada have implemented various gender-inclusive policies that provide structural support for women, which India could look to as models:

1. Flexible Work Hours: To enable a better work-life balance.
2. Gender-Sensitization Training: Mandatory training in these countries helps create an inclusive environment.
3. Gender-Representation Mandates: Judicial bodies are encouraged to maintain agender balance at all levels, ensuring that women are fairly represented.

Prioritizing Women-Centric Needs in Judiciary

Infrastructural Support:

• Building Committees: Representation of women on judicial building committees to address the infrastructure needs of women.

Policy Reforms:

• Reducing Practice Requirements: To accommodate women who may have taken breaks.
• Gender-Sensitive Transfer Policies: Flexible policies that help maintain career continuity for women.

Training and Support:

• Gender-Sensitization Training: In judicial academies to reduce unconscious bias.
• Family-Friendly Judicial Spaces: Facilities like childcare and nursing centers in court premises.

Conclusion

Achieving gender parity in the judiciary is essential for a fair and representative justice system. By reforming entry-level and retention policies and providing infrastructure that accommodates women’s needs, the judiciary can become a more inclusive institution. This will not only empower more women to join and remain in the judiciary but will also ensure that diverse perspectives are included in judicial decision-making, fostering justice and equality.

MAINS QUESTION

A judiciary that lacks gender diversity may fall short of delivering balanced justice.” Critically analyse this statement with reference to the impact of women’s perspectives in judicial decision-making.