Content

1. India needs more women judges in the Supreme Court
2. Sickle cell: The battle for disability justice

India needs more women judges in the Supreme Court

Women in the Supreme Court of India

• Current status (Sept 2025): Out of 34 judges, only 1 woman (Justice B.V. Nagarathna).
• Historical record: Only 11 women judges out of 287 since 1950 (≈3.8%).
• Milestone: First woman judge – Justice Fathima Beevi (1989).
• Notable fact: Justice B.V. Nagarathna is set to be the first woman CJI (2027), but only for 36 days.

Relevance : GS 2 (Polity-Judiciary, Constitution, Governance), GS 1(Society – Gender Justice)

Practice Question : Why does the underrepresentation of women in the higher judiciary weaken both judicial legitimacy and gender justice? Suggest structural reforms to ensure gender diversity in judicial appointments.(250 Words)

Problems of Gender Imbalance

• Scant appointments: Women appointments remain rare and irregular (last batch in 2021 was considered “unprecedented”).
• Tenure disadvantage: Women often appointed late → short tenure → less chance to enter Collegium or become CJI.
• Exclusion from Bar route: Since 1950, 9 men elevated directly from Bar vs only 1 woman (Justice Indu Malhotra, 2018).
• Diversity gap: No women from SC/ST communities; only Justice Fathima Beevi represented a minority faith.
• Collegium bias: Seniority, caste, region considered in appointments; gender not institutionalised as a criterion.

Structural Issues in Judicial Appointments

• Collegium system: Appointments decided by CJI + 4 senior-most judges → recommendations sent via Law Ministry → PM → President.
• Opaque criteria: No clear, public standards for selection; transparency inconsistent (only some resolutions explain reasons).
• Gender blindness: Even when diversity in caste/region considered, gender is overlooked.
• Excuses cited: “Lack of senior women judges” – but seniority norms were ignored in recent male appointments.

Impact of Underrepresentation

• Judicial perspective: Women judges bring insights shaped by gendered experiences of law and society.
• Public trust: A representative bench fosters confidence in judicial impartiality.
• Substantive equality: A court adjudicating on gender rights but lacking women judges undermines legitimacy.
• Policy paradox: SC has directed Bar associations to ensure 30% women representation but has no such mandate for itself.

Comparative Perspective

• Global practice: Many judiciaries institutionalise gender diversity in appointments (e.g., Canada, South Africa).
• India’s lag: Despite being vocal on gender equality jurisprudence, structural gender inclusion in higher judiciary missing.

Needed Reforms

• Institutionalise gender criterion: Mandate gender representation in Collegium policy.
• Diversify sources: Encourage direct elevation of senior women lawyers from Bar.
• Earlier appointments: Appoint women at younger ages → longer tenure, higher chance at Collegium/CJI.
• Representation mandate: Written policy ensuring diversity (gender, caste, region, religion).
• Transparency: Collegium must disclose reasons for selections/rejections.
• Pipeline strengthening: Promote women in High Courts, Senior Advocate positions, and judicial services.

Key Takeaway

• The Supreme Court cannot be the true guardian of gender equality and constitutional justice if women remain token representatives rather than equal participants.
• Institutionalised reforms, not one-off appointments, are required for genuine gender inclusion in India’s judiciary.

Sickle cell: The battle for disability justice

Basics of Sickle Cell Disease (SCD)

• Genetic disorder: Caused by inheriting two copies of the sickle cell gene (HbS) or combinations like HbS + β-thalassemia/HbD.
• Pathophysiology: Red blood cells become crescent/sickle-shaped → reduced oxygen carrying capacity → blockages in blood vessels.
• Symptoms: Chronic anaemia, intense pain crises, recurrent hospitalisations, organ damage, reduced life expectancy.
• Impact: Early childhood onset; disrupts schooling, jobs, livelihood, and overall quality of life.
• Social dimension: Stigma + disproportionate burden on Adivasi and Dalit communities in India.

Relevance : GS 2(Social Issues- Health , Governance)

Practice Question : Despite being recognised under the RPWD Act, 2016, sickle cell disease patients continue to remain excluded from substantive disability justice. Critically analyse.(250 Words)

RPWD Act, 2016 & SCD

• Aligns with UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• Expanded disability definition to include “benchmark disabilities” (≥40% impairment).
• Rights guaranteed: free school education, reservations in higher education, government jobs (4% quota), poverty alleviation schemes, land/housing benefits.
• SCD recognised under revised March 2024 guidelines → but excluded from the 4% job quota (reserved for vision/hearing loss, locomotor, intellectual disabilities).
• Disappointment: Inclusion on paper without meaningful protections = “exclusion disguised as inclusion.”

Issues in Current Framework

1. Narrow Medical Lens

• Disability measured by biomedical scoring (pain, transfusions, neurological complications).
• Ignores invisible, episodic, and fluctuating disabilities like SCD.
• Fails to capture socioeconomic and emotional toll (missed school, lost jobs, stigma).

2. Arbitrary Certification

• Disability percentage depends on hospital/doctor → subjective.
• Same patient may receive different scores from different boards.
• Many with debilitating SCD may fall below 40% benchmark, losing entitlements.

3. Accessibility Barriers

• Certification requires confirmatory tests from government labs + evaluation at district hospitals.
• Rural, Adivasi, Dalit patients struggle to travel or afford repeated hospital visits.
• Benefits often inaccessible to those who need them most.

Socioeconomic & Policy Dimensions

• States like Odisha & Himachal Pradesh provide enhanced pension schemes for severe disabilities.
• Income tax deduction (Sec 80U): ₹75,000 (disability), ₹1.25 lakh (severe disability).
• But without certification, individuals with SCD are excluded from both financial and welfare benefits.

Needed Reforms

• Reservation Inclusion: Extend 4% job quota to SCD and other blood disorders.
• Certification Reform: Move beyond biomedical scoring → incorporate rights-based and lived-experience lens.
• Flexible Thresholds: Account for fluctuating, episodic nature of chronic diseases.
• Decentralisation: Local healthcare units (PHCs/CHCs) should certify disability to reduce rural access barriers.
• Awareness & Training: Medical boards must sensitise doctors on invisible disabilities and ensure uniformity in scoring.
• Holistic Understanding: Recognise disability as a product of health + social exclusion + structural barriers, not just impairment percentage.

Key Takeaway

• The Supreme Court cannot be the true guardian of gender equality and constitutional justice if women remain token representatives rather than equal participants.
• Institutionalised reforms, not one-off appointments, are required for genuine gender inclusion in India’s judiciary.