Justice For Women - Women In Justice
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
JUSTICE FOR WOMEN: WOMEN IN JUSTICE
Aashna Jain, OP Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
The importance of women in the judiciary has lately increased significantly as nations all over the world try to advance gender equality. This article analyses the crucial need for female judges in the legal system and considers the possible benefits of achieving a more equitable gender balance in the judiciary. The results include greater judicial integrity, elevated public trust, and improved judgements. This research paper also analyses how female judges affect gender-related issues, using famous cases like the Sabarimala ruling as example. To highlight the unequal representation of women in both settings, the study compares the International Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of India. It critically evaluates the effects of having female judges on the court's tasks, including decision-making procedures and legal outcomes.
Additionally, it examines methods for eliminating discrimination and gender bias by employing female judges. The paper analyses the judiciary's appointment procedure, highlighting its advantages and disadvantages. At the end, the research paper offers recommendations for improving the justice system's equity and balance. Keywords: Gender equality, Judiciary. Female judges, Supreme Court, gender bias, collegium system
INTRODUCTION
“People ask me sometimes, ‘When will there be enough women on the court? ’ And my answer is, ‘When there are nine. ’ People are shocked, but if there were nine men, and nobody is ever raised a question about that,” Ruth Bader Ginsberg said at Georgetown Law School in 2015, on how many female Supreme Court Justices are enough. Fair gender representation improves the judiciary's strength and ability to deliver just verdicts. Women judges bring a variety of viewpoints and points of view that help boost public trust in the judiciary's ability to uphold the rule of law and human rights while also representing the society it serves. Women in leadership positions also combat corruption by helping to dismantle collusion networks. An inadequate number of six women served as Supreme Court judges out of the 229 judges appointed between 1950 and November 2015, which is an astonishing number.
In terms of raw figures, the count of female judges has experienced a notable increase, rising from 29 in 2021 to 45 in 2023. Even though India chose its first female prime minister in 1966, Justice M. Fathima Beevi of Kerala was the first woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court in 1989. Justice Fatima Beevi was appointed as the first female Supreme Court judge in 1980, 40 years after the Supreme Court was founded in 1950. According to Justice Fatima Beevi, "I have opened the closed doors" in 2018. Although this had a favorable effect, it wasn't enough of an influence to genuinely alter peoples' opinions. Nevertheless, when we examine the Supreme Court, the proportion of female judges compared to the overall judicial composition is strikingly low at just 9 per cent. This data undeniably underscores the prevailing male dominance within the higher strata of the judiciary.
This shows how the judiciary in India falls well short of attaining gender diversity and representation, highlighting the pervasive problem that is ingrained in the prestigious "Judiciary," a pillar of justice. Justice Indu Malhotra, who had already retired at the time, made a crucial point during a panel discussion in 2018 that was hosted by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy that "There is gender bias in the legal community and the judiciary," she stated. The consensus is that female judges might not be as adept at handling complex business disputes. Even an experienced judge will occasionally comment, "You may not understand it," meaning that women must work twice as hard, persevere, and overcome challenges.
Women's participation in the legal system may have a number of advantageous effects, such as boosting public confidence, empowering marginalized populations, and improving access to justice for the underprivileged. Judge Mujinga Bimansha Marie Josée claims that women are frequently seen as having higher moral standards and being less prone to corruption. She contends that a more equitable gender distribution in the judiciary can lead to a more sympathetic and humane delivery of justice. At the NLUD commencement ceremony, Justice Bhat recalled that there were fewer female students when he first entered college, which was not specific to this profession but rather a simple reflection of society and women's participation in it. "It is encouraging to see how far we have come after 40 years of standing.
" He asserted that everyone should attempt to create space for becoming more varied and representative since there are still many obstacles to overcome until women are equally represented in the workforce in our incredibly unequal society. "Inclusion must be a goal in our legal education”. In the judicial system, women are extremely important, especially when it comes to cases of sexual and gender-based violence. According to Shamso Bile, "Girls who have suffered abuse from men often find it difficult to share all the details with other men, creating a hurdle for thorough investigations. " Since the high-profile sexual harassment case known as the "butt-slapping case," Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill, in which there was no female judge on the Supreme Court, the status of women in the judiciary has unquestionably improved.
Even though they admit some modest advancements, female judges and prosecutors agree that women still confront obstacles in obtaining equal access to justice in their cultures. A diverse jury pool made up of people from different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds can provide fresh viewpoints and opinions to the bench. Additionally, it can increase public confidence in the legal system while strengthening the judiciary’s reputation. Increased representation of women in the legal profession, especially in leadership positions, has the potential to disprove gender stereotypes and empower women to more assertively defend their rights. The persistence of prejudice and gender preconceptions, which are particularly harmful to younger women who do not fit the stereotypical mould of a judge, can be used to explain this tendency.
Further impeding the advancement of women into higherranking legal professions is the lack of assistance and possibilities for professional growth throughout the recruiting process. For the selection of senior judicial responsibilities, these positions generally act as a talent pool. The Supreme Court has finally overturned the long-standing prohibition banning women between the ages of 10 and 50 from accessing Kerala's Sabarimala Temple after a two-decadelong judicial fight marked by years of arguments, deliberations, and vociferous dissent. All of these limitations on women entering temples have been ruled unlawful and a violation of their rights by the court. Furthermore, it claims that people's rights, regardless of their gender, cannot take precedence over their beliefs.
The very divisive Sabarimala verdict is proof that women from different socioeconomic positions may retain backward ideas. In 1965, the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorization of admission Act), citing Rule 3(b), which forbids the admission of women customarily barred from public places of worship, first supported the legitimacy of the prohibition on women entering Sabarimala. This, however, conflicts with Section 3 of the same Act, which guarantees access to public places of worship for all Hindu castes and communities. According to Articles 14 and 26 of the Constitution, the Act's provisions encouraging equality, nondiscrimination, freedom of religion, and the rights of religious groups to set their own rules are in direct contrast with the judgment.
On September 28, a majority verdict by a 4:1 margin ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent women between the ages of ten and fifty from entering the Sabarimala shrine. Notably, Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole female judge on the five-member constitution bench, disagreed with this decision, arguing that the right to religious freedom should not take precedence over the right to equality. She invoked Article 25, which protects the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one's faith, to defend the Travancore Devaswom Board's position. Since there was no biblical support for the limitation, Justice Malhotra claimed that the exclusion of women constituted an "essential religious practice" protected by Article 25 and delayed making a judgment solely to the Ayyapan community.
In addition, she said that courts should exercise caution when determining the legitimacy of religious activities, only becoming involved when those traditions are hurtful, repressive, or detrimental for society, as in the instance of Sati. In the past, women were not deemed to be qualified for careers in law. But as time went on, so did women, and now they may choose the type of profession they would like to pursue. However, the judiciary still needs more women. The Indian judiciary urgently needs greater female representation because female justices provide fresh viewpoints and experiences that bolster the legal system. There is less female representation in the higher court than in the lower judiciary because of the opaque recruiting procedure.
In the lower judiciary, women are appointed based on official qualifications and examinations, but in the higher judiciary, selection is mostly dependent on networks, which may be incredibly discriminating. The paucity of female judges in the higher court is a major setback since male judges prefer having more male judges in the higher judiciary. In fact, the previous Chief Justice of India, N. V. Ramana, stated that "women are entitled to 50% reservation in the judiciary, and they have all the rights to demand it" in a statement that emphasized the need of addressing the gender imbalance in the Indian court. Additionally, CJI Ramana noted that just roughly 12% of Supreme Court judges are women, which is a very low number for the judiciary. Justice B. V.
Nagarathna, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in August and will become India's first female Chief Justice in 2027, also spoke at the event. She stated that the increased visibility of women in judicial positions can "pave the way for greater representation of women in other decision-making positions, such as the legislative and executive branches of the government. " Even if all goes according to plan and Justice B V Nagarathna ends up becoming the first female Chief Justice of India in 2027, this will not have much of an influence or difference because she would only have approximately a month before retiring. These appointments therefore have no actual influence and are merely symbolic.
There is a need to perform a comparative analysis by contrasting the presence of female judges in India's highest judicial body with that of an international tribunal, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the world's court, to gain insight into India's position with regard to female representation within its Supreme Court. For the courts to accurately represent society's diverse composition and efficiently address the needs of its citizens, women's active engagement in the legal system is essential. But historically, there has been a significant gender imbalance in the judiciary, not just at the Supreme Court of India but at the International Court of Justice as well. Only four of the fifteen judges on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will be female in 2023, falling well short of the gender balance goal.
To emphasize the need of aggressively expanding the representation of women on the bench and acknowledging their crucial contributions, it is important to note that the International Court of Justice did not have a female judge until 1995. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial institution of the United Nations, has had only four female judges in its history. The other 105 judges have all been male. When examining this critically through the context of the situation at the Indian Supreme Court, 268 justices have served on the court overall over its 73-year history, with only 11 of them being women, and the SC has not yet appointed a Chief Justice. The appointment process for the Supreme Court is opaque since it is based on the Chief Justice's recommendation and that of a collegium of senior judges.
The ASP (assembly of state parties), which chooses the judges for the ICC, strives for a minimum of one-third female justices—still a low number—while considering gender balance in the election process. Comparing the two, it becomes clear that there is a global issue with women's underrepresentation in the court, not simply an Indian one. But why is it a problem that women have such little representation in senior positions even in the twenty-first century, when development in all spheres is at its height? Sociocultural difficulties are one of the root reasons of this issue, as well as systematic discrepancies in the legal system, and law was traditionally seen as a "male profession.
Despite the increasing presence of women in the legal profession and the societal changes acknowledging the need for women’s rights, it would be expected that the collegium system that appoints judges to the Supreme Court of India would accommodate a higher number of female judges. However, there appears to be no notable change in the likelihood of female judges being appointed to the Supreme Court following the establishment of the collegium. The Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India held that “the ‘ultimate power’ of appointment vested in the executive to make appointments was being abused owing to the principle of Judicial independence, thus, the collegium system was reinstated. The Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud has streamlined the appointment process of judges to the constitutional courts through a selection procedure.
It considers a combination of merit and seniority in the judicial ranks involving a “meaningful discussion on and assessment of candidates’ judicial acumen. ” These developments were crucial for increasing the diversity of the SCI. However, despite having a substantial pool of potential appointees, the collegium system chooses candidates from a small group like the high court chief justices. For fair representation to the SCI, diversity among high court chief justice’s becomes paramount and since SCI itself appoints chief justices of the high courts, it is within the power of the SCI to determine the composition and diversity in the potential appointees. To address the gender disparity in the judges of the supreme court, there must be a substantial increase in the appointment of rate of women as high court chief justices.
But it is worth noting that only a limited number of women have served as chief justices of high court, since the collegium began in 1993. Further observations show that women high court chief justices are being appointed at a low rate, relative to men. It is important to note that the lower appointment of women high court chief justices to the SCI, cannot be attributed to them having less experience or seniority than the male counterparts. Therefore, if the Supreme Court aims to increase gender diversity, firstly, it is imperative for the collegium to expand its pool of potential candidates to more female judges and secondly, it needs to encourage progression of women’s careers in the judiciary for them to be able to reach the position of the chief justices.
The Women's Reservation Bill, which aims to allocate one-third of all seats in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies to women, had received approval from both houses of Parliament but was awaiting Presidential assent as per Article 111 of the Indian constitution, but on September 29th, The President of India Droupadi Murmu granted presidential assent to the said bill, making it law as the constitution requires. This ground-breaking legislation not only ensures women's representation in parliament, but it also represents an important step forward in encouraging women's engagement and gender equality in India. This bill, which has popular support in the Lok Sabha, is an example of the critical steps being taken to establish a 33% reservation in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.
It emphasizes the critical importance of expanding such reservation rules to the court, underlining the importance of gender parity and representation across all branches of government. “I don’t say women’s rights—I say the constitutional principle of the equal citizenship status of men and women” quotes Ruth Bader Ginsberg. While women have historically endured ongoing prejudice and a more difficult path to judicial recognition than their male counterparts, female judges remain unbiased and deliver firm decisions that uphold justice. Religious and cultural views, which are frequently rooted in deeply ingrained patriarchal beliefs about women's societal responsibilities, do not override women's rights. Gender equality is achieved through encouraging increased female participation at all levels of government, legislatures, courts, and other public institutions.
Some actions must be done to create a comprehensive framework that encourages equal representation of men and women in judicial positions. Such as Gender-Responsive Case Management, which focuses on ensuring that court cases are handled in a way that ensures equitable and just outcomes while considering the special needs and vulnerabilities of women and disadvantaged groups. Sensitization and training will be offered to judicial employees and personnel to raise awareness about gender issues, prejudices, and stereotypes for them to approach their work in an educated and equitable manner. M/S PLR Projects Pvt Ltd vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd urged that efforts be taken to ensure a gender-balanced judiciary. The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court for equal representation of women in the upper courts.
They emphasized the dismal representation of women in constitutional courts. They believed that gender equality in all institutions should be the objective of a contemporary progressive society. If the organization approves the recommendations, it will clear the path for deserving women practicing in the Supreme Court to be transferred to the High Court in judicial posts. By investing in women's advancement as law enforcement agents, justice will be delivered more effectively, women and all members of society will be treated equitably, and equality before the law will be achieved. The presence of many women in the judiciary can serve to humanize justice.
They must overcome obstacles such as political insecurity and violent conflicts, as well as societal stigma and prejudice, to become attorneys, judges, and prosecutors, demonstrating that women's meaningful representation in justice equals improved access to justice for all. Policymakers, legal institutions, and the legal community must all work together to ensure that the judiciary reflects the varied cultures it serves.