Key Facts and Data Points

  • Bill Objective: Mandate proportional representation for SC, ST, OBC, religious minorities and women in appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
  • Regional Benches: Permanent benches proposed at Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai (in addition to Delhi) for regular appellate work; constitutional matters remain with the Constitution Bench in Delhi.
  • Current Representation (2018‑2024):
  • SC/ST/OBC judges: ~20% of higher‑judiciary appointees.
  • Women judges: <15%.
  • Religious minorities: <5%.
  • Time‑bound Notification: Central Government must notify collegium recommendations within 90 days.

Background and Context

  • The Collegium system (established by Supreme Court judgments in the 1990s) operates behind closed doors with no statutory criteria, leading to accusations of nepotism (“Uncle Judge” syndrome) and lack of diversity.
  • Article 130 declares Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court but allows the CJI, with Presidential approval, to hold sittings elsewhere – a provision the Bill seeks to operationalise for regional benches.
  • Past reports (229th Law Commission, 2009; Parliamentary Standing Committee, 2021‑22) have recommended decentralising the apex court to improve access and reduce pendency.

Significance for India / Governance / Policy

  • Access to Justice: Regional benches would reduce travel costs and logistical hurdles for litigants from the South, East, North‑East and other distant regions.
  • Representative Judiciary: A bench reflecting India’s social composition can enhance public confidence, enrich constitutional interpretation, and promote substantive justice.
  • Policy Reform: The Bill pushes for transparency (90‑day notification), formal diversity metrics in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), and revival of a modified National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

Constitutional Provisions Related to Judicial Appointments

  • Article 124: Appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President in consultation with the CJI and senior judges.
  • Article 130: Seat of the Supreme Court in Delhi; CJI may hold sittings elsewhere with Presidential approval.
  • Article 217: Appointment of High Court judges by the President in consultation with the CJI, Governor, and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
  • Article 126‑128: Provisions for acting CJI, ad‑hoc judges, and retired judges.
  • Article 224A: Allows retired High Court judges to sit as ad‑hoc judges in High Courts.

Proposed Reforms in the Bill

  • Proportional Representation: Mandatory quotas based on population percentages for SC, ST, OBC, women, and minorities.
  • 90‑Day Notification: Limits executive delay in accepting collegium recommendations.
  • Regional Supreme Court Benches: Permanent benches at Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai (and Delhi) for routine appeals.
  • Amend MoP: Include explicit diversity criteria and require disclosure of demographic data of candidates.
  • Revival of NJAC (modified): Incorporate judiciary, executive, bar council and civil‑society representatives to democratise appointments.

Challenges Hindering Diversity

  • Opacity of Collegium: No public criteria, minutes, or audits.
  • Absence of Constitutional Reservation: Unlike public employment, the judiciary lacks mandated quotas.
  • Leaky Pipeline for Women: High attrition after lower judiciary due to caregiving responsibilities and lack of infrastructure.
  • Geographical Centralisation: Delhi‑centric practice limits visibility of lawyers from remote regions.
  • Old‑Boys’ Club Mentality: Elite networks dominate recommendations.

Way Forward / Recommendations

  • Utilise Article 130 to establish regional benches without constitutional amendment.
  • Infrastructure Upgrades: Creches, safe washrooms, anti‑harassment committees in courts to retain women lawyers.
  • Mentorship Programs: For first‑generation, Dalit, Adivasi and minority lawyers.
  • Formal Diversity Metrics: Amend MoP to make caste, gender, religion and region mandatory considerations.
  • Transparent NJAC Model: Balanced representation to curb nepotism.

Drishti Mains Question: “Diversity in the judiciary is essential for substantive justice.” Examine in the context of India’s higher judicial appointments.