The need for diversity in the judiciary

  • February 19, 2026
  • Indian Polity

The Hindu

The need for diversity in the judiciary

I. Key Arguments Presented

1. Importance of Diversity in Judicial Appointments

  • Constitutional Mandates: The article outlines the constitutional provisions regarding judicial appointments, particularly Article 124 and Article 127, which lay out the process for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, it emphasizes the need for a more inclusive system that addresses gender, regional, and social diversities.
  • P. Wilson’s Private Member Bill: The private member bill introduced by DMK MP P. Wilson focuses on bringing diversity to judicial appointments. Wilson advocates for a system where a greater proportion of judges represent women, SC/ST, and OBC communities in line with India's demographic composition. This bill aims to amend the Constitution to ensure fairer representation within the judicial system.

2. Challenges in Access to the Supreme Court

  • Overburdened Courts: The article points out that the Supreme Court is overburdened with over 900,000 cases pending. This exacerbates delays and limits access to justice for common citizens.
  • Regional Disparity: The article raises concerns over the concentration of judicial authority in the Delhi-based Supreme Court. Regional representation in judicial appointments, such as through regional benches, could help ease this burden and improve access to justice across the country.

3. The Role of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

  • NJAC’s Role and Controversy: The article references the NJAC, which was proposed to ensure a more transparent and accountable system of judicial appointments. However, it notes that the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015, arguing that it undermined judicial independence. Despite this, the author argues for the revival of the NJAC or a similar body to ensure diversity and enhance the transparency of the judicial appointment process.

4. Diversity in Higher Judiciary

  • Underrepresentation of Marginalized Communities: The article discusses the lack of representation of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the higher judiciary. According to the latest figures, only 15% of the judges in higher judiciary positions belong to these communities, despite the fact that these groups make up a significant portion of India’s population.
  • Need for Regional Benchmarks: The article supports the setting up of regional benches in the Supreme Court (e.g., in Kolkata, Chennai, and Mumbai) to ensure greater accessibility and more inclusive representation.

 II. Author’s Stance and Biases

The author of the article expresses strong support for increasing diversity in judicial appointments and advocating for the restoration of the NJAC or a similar mechanism. The stance is clearly pro-reform, emphasizing the need for greater representation of marginalized communities, especially women, SCs, STs, and OBCs, in the judiciary.

While supporting reforms, the author also critiques the existing system for its failure to represent the demographic diversity of India and its overreliance on the centralized judicial decision-making process in Delhi. The author appears to advocate for a balanced approach that considers both efficiency and diversity in judicial appointments.


III. Analysis: Pros and Cons

Pros:

  • Enhanced Diversity: Implementing reforms to ensure greater representation of marginalized groups in the judiciary will improve social equity and justice, which aligns with democratic ideals of inclusivity.
  • Improved Access to Justice: Regional benches could reduce the Supreme Court’s caseload and provide more accessible legal recourse for individuals in far-flung areas. This decentralization would lead to more efficient and timely judgments.
  • Better Representation: Ensuring that the judiciary reflects the nation’s diverse demographic, including women and backward classes, will build greater public trust and confidence in judicial processes.

Cons:

  • Potential for Inefficiency: While regional benches may improve accessibility, they may also lead to logistical and administrative challenges. Setting up and maintaining multiple regional benches could stretch resources, creating operational inefficiencies.
  • Resistance to Change: Legal reforms, especially those that challenge the status quo, often meet resistance. Judges and legal institutions with entrenched power may oppose changes that challenge their dominance in decision-making.
  • The Risk of Tokenism: Without proper guidelines, there is a risk that appointments for diversity may be viewed as tokenism rather than genuine empowerment, leading to undermining the professional integrity of the judiciary.

IV. Policy Implications and Real-World Impact

Policy Implications:

  • Judicial Accountability: The establishment of regional benches and a more transparent appointment system would require robust mechanisms for judicial accountability. The creation of such systems could inspire confidence in the judiciary, particularly in marginalized communities.
  • Governance Reforms: Reviving or replacing the NJAC could address the issue of the executive’s dominance in judicial appointments. A more transparent and inclusive selection process would strengthen judicial independence while promoting diversity.
  • Institutional Development: The implementation of such reforms would require extensive institutional development, including financial investments, improved infrastructure, and enhanced legal frameworks to ensure fairness and inclusivity in the process.

Real-World Impact:

  • Improved Public Confidence: A judiciary that reflects the diversity of India would likely foster greater public confidence. The perception of fairness and equity would be enhanced, especially among marginalized communities.
  • Access to Justice: Regional benches would likely reduce delays and improve the efficiency of the legal system, which is currently overwhelmed with cases. This would ensure that justice is delivered more swiftly and fairly, especially in underserved regions.

V. Alignment with UPSC GS Papers

  • GS Paper II (Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice): The article’s discussion on judicial appointments, the NJAC, and the need for regional representation aligns with topics related to governance reforms, judicial independence, and social justice.
  • GS Paper II (International Relations): The discussion of diversity and the potential for international models (such as South Africa’s system) is relevant to questions on international governance standards and their adaptation in India.
  • GS Paper II (Polity): The article addresses constitutional provisions, reforms to the judicial system, and the principles of representation and fairness, which directly relate to the study of the Indian Constitution and judicial reforms.

VI. Conclusion

The call for diversity in the judiciary, through the reintroduction of regional benches and reforms to the appointment process, is an important step towards strengthening India’s democratic and legal institutions. While there are challenges in implementing these reforms—particularly the potential for inefficiency and resistance from entrenched powers—the long-term benefits of greater inclusivity and accountability outweigh the drawbacks.

Ensuring diversity in the judiciary is not only a matter of social justice but is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the fairness of the legal system. By addressing the concerns of marginalized communities and decentralizing judicial authority, India can build a more equitable and efficient legal system. The reform agenda must balance judicial independence with the imperative for public trust, ensuring that the judiciary serves as a true guardian of justice for all.