Only 3% High Court Judges Appointed Since 2018 Belong To SC Category, 1.5% To ST & 5.3% To Minority; Parliamentary Committee Calls It ‘Diversity Deficit’
The recent Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in 133rd report on “Judicial Process and their Reforms” has said that the data provided by the Government on the social status of the Judges of the High Courts reveals the judiciary suffers from a 'diversity deficit'."The Committee is of the view that while making recommendations for appointments...
The recent Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in 133rd report on “Judicial Process and their Reforms” has said that the data provided by the Government on the social status of the Judges of the High Courts reveals the judiciary suffers from a 'diversity deficit'.
"The Committee is of the view that while making recommendations for appointments to the Higher Judiciary, both the Supreme Court and the High Court's Collegiums should recommend an adequate number of women and candidates from the marginalized sections of the society including minorities. This provision should be clearly mentioned in the Memoranda of Procedure (MoP), which is presently under finalization,” it recommended.
The representation of SCs, STs, OBCs, Women, and Minorities in the higher judiciary is far below the desired levels and does not reflect the social diversity of the country, said the Committee. In recent years there has been a declining trend in the representation from all the marginalized sections of Indian society, it added.
According to the official data, Only 3 percent SC, 1.5 percent ST, 12 percent OBC, 5 percent minority and 15 percent women judges have been appointed in High Courts since 2018. The data regarding 2.16 % judges was not available.
In 2023, out of 61 judges in High Court only three judges are appointed from SC community, 2 from SC, 15 from OBCs, 9 women and 4 from Minority community.
| SI.No | Year | No. of Appointments | General | SC | ST | OBC | Women | Minority | NA |
| 1 | 2023 | 61 | 37 | 3 | 2 | 15 | 9 | 4 | 0 |
| 2 | 2022 | 165 | 137 | 6 | 0 | 17 | 34 | 5 | 0 |
| 3 | 2021 | 120 | 85 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 17 | 13 | 0 |
| 4 | 2020 | 66 | 52 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 13 | 1 | 0 |
| 5 | 2019 | 81 | 64 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 2 |
| 6 | 2018 | 108 | 82 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 11 |
| Total | 601 | 457 | 18 | 9 | 72 | 91 | 32 | 13 |
While noting that there is no provision for reservation in the judicial appointments at High Courts and Supreme Court level, the Committee stated that adequate representation of various sections of Indian society will further strengthen the trust, credibility, and acceptability of the Judiciary among the citizens.
It referred to Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India wherein the Apex Court said:
“...Along with other factors, such as, proper representation of all sections of the people from all parts of the country, legitimate expectation of the suitable and equally meritorious Judges to be considered in their turn is a relevant factor for due consideration while making the choice of the most suitable and meritorious amongst them, the outweighing consideration being merit, to select the best available for the apex court.”
The Committee also noted that, according to the Government, the need for ensuring adequate representation has also been acknowledged by the Supreme Court Collegium, which while sending their comments on the draft MoP vide CJI’s letter in March 2017 agreed to the following provision:
“Merit and integrity shall be the prime criteria for appointment of a judge in the High Court. As far as possible, representation shall be given to women and marginalized sections of society. However, in case of judicial officers, due weightage shall also be given to their inter-se seniority.”
While noting that as of now the data related to the social status of High Court judges are available from 2018 onwards, it recommended that, “the Department of Justice find ways and means to collect such data in respect of all judges presently serving in the Supreme Court and High Courts. For doing this, if required, necessary amendments may be brought in the respective Acts/service rules of the judges.”