DIVERSITY IN JUDICIARY

• According to the constitutional framework, judicial appointments were made by the government in consultation with the judiciary until the 1980s.
• In the First Judges Case (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that the executive had primacy in appointing judges, on the ground that it is democratically accountable to the people.
• However, to safeguard judicial independence and prevent political influence, the Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the collegium system for appointments. This position was reaffirmed in the Third Judges Case (1998).
• Under the collegium system, appointments to the Supreme Court are recommended by a body comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
• For High Court appointments, the collegium includes the CJI and two senior-most Supreme Court judges. The collegium initiates proposals for appointments and forwards its recommendations to the Central Government.
• While the government may return a recommendation for reconsideration, if the collegium reiterates its view, the appointment becomes binding.
• The collegium system has played a significant role in maintaining judicial independence from the executive in matters of appointments. However, it has faced criticism for its opacity and limited accountability.
• Concerns have also been raised about alleged favoritism, including the appointment of relatives of sitting judges. In 2014, Parliament enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment to establish the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was intended to recommend judicial appointments.
• The proposed NJAC was to include the CJI, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons.
• However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, holding that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining judicial independence. As a result, the collegium system continues to govern judicial appointments today

• The collegium system prioritizes merit while recommending appointments to the higher judiciary. However, it has been criticized for not adequately representing the country’s social diversity.
• For example, among judges appointed to the higher judiciary between 2018 and 2024, only about one-fifth were from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
• The representation of women has remained below 15%, while that of religious minorities is under 5%.
• A Private Member’s Bill seeks to address this imbalance by mandating proportional representation for SCs, STs, OBCs, women, and religious minorities in appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts, in line with their population share.
• The Bill also proposes that the Central Government must notify collegium recommendations within a maximum period of 90 days.
• Access to the Supreme Court is another concern, as it functions solely from Delhi, making it difficult for many citizens to approach the apex court. Additionally, over 90,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court as of January 2026.
• To tackle these challenges, the Bill suggests establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai.
• These benches would exercise the Court’s full jurisdiction, except in matters involving substantial constitutional questions, which would continue to be heard by the Constitution Bench at the principal seat in Delhi.

The responsibility for promoting social diversity in judicial appointments largely rests with the judiciary, particularly through the collegium mechanism. The proposed Private Member’s Bill assumes significance because it seeks to establish a constitutional mandate to achieve greater inclusivity. As a long-term measure, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) could be reconsidered with a more diversified composition. Its structure may be expanded to include members from the legislature, the Bar Council, and academia, similar to appointment frameworks followed in countries such as South Africa and the United Kingdom. Such a model would make the consultative process more representative and participatory, while ensuring adequate inclusion of SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, and women.

Furthermore, as suggested earlier by Parliamentary Committees and the Law Commission, regional benches of the Supreme Court can be created within the existing constitutional framework. The Court could begin by establishing a bench in one region on a pilot basis and subsequently expand to other regions within a defined timeframe