The Crossbill News Desk
Data placed before Parliament on Thursday (January 5) highlighted the sharp lack of social diversity in appointments to India’s high courts over the past five years. Between January 1, 2021 and January 30, 2026, only a small fraction of the 593 judges appointed to various high courts came from Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class communities.
Responding to a question raised by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP P. Wilson in the Rajya Sabha, Union minister of state (independent charge) for parliamentary affairs Arjun Ram Meghwal said, “As per the information provided by the recommendees, out of 593 Judges appointed from 01.01.2021 till 30.01.2026, 26 belong to SC category, 14 belong to ST category, 80 belong to OBC category and 37 belong to the minority category. 96 women were appointed as Judges in various High Courts during the same period.”
The minister also pointed to the existing appointment mechanism, stating, “As per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court vests with the Chief Justice of India, while the responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in High Courts vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.”
He added that the Centre had been consistently urging the judiciary to broaden representation, saying, “However, the Government is committed to enhancing social diversity in judiciary and has been requesting the Chief Justices of High Courts that while sending proposals for appointment of Judges, due consideration be given to suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities and Women to ensure social diversity in the appointment of Judges in High Courts.”
Reacting strongly to the figures, Wilson described the situation as alarming and indicative of structural bias.
“As we enter the 76th year of our constitution, concerning trends persist in the composition of the High Court judges, with declining representation from various sections of society. There is a notable diversity deficit in High Courts, which does not reflect the wonderfully diverse and pluralistic society of India. Many social groups are underrepresented in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. There is evident discrimination in the recruitment process for High Court judges,” he wrote in a post on X.
Breaking down the data further, Wilson said the figures showed that only 4.38% of high court judges belonged to the SC category, 2.36% to STs and 13.49% to OBCs, while 79.76% came from what he termed “Forward caste” backgrounds.
He also pointed out that earlier data reflected a similar pattern, noting that between 2018 and October 30, 2024, SC representation stood at 3.07%, STs at 2.05% and OBCs at 11.99%, with the remaining 82.89% drawn from upper castes.
“This suggests that the rights of the downtrodden may not be adequately safeguarded, potentially leading to infringements and violations. People are concerned that a narrow, homogeneous group of judges from certain classes may not reflect society’s diverse views and values, especially on issues related to culture and generational differences, as they tend to interpret laws based on their own backgrounds,” he said.
Emphasising the need for reform, Wilson added, “A more diverse judiciary is essential; without it, the rights of underrepresented groups are at greater risk, which could, in turn, lead to discrimination. The lack of judges from historically oppressed groups is telling; it is not due to a lack of qualifications or non-availability, but a firm decision to discriminate and keep them away from the judiciary.”
Calling for systemic change, the DMK leader demanded a constitutional amendment to ensure proportionate representation of SCs, STs and OBCs in appointments to the high courts and the Supreme Court, arguing that the “overrepresentation of certain groups” raises serious questions about “the objectivity of the current collegium system and its failure to recruit from across social divides”.
Responding to a question raised by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP P. Wilson in the Rajya Sabha, Union minister of state (independent charge) for parliamentary affairs Arjun Ram Meghwal said, “As per the information provided by the recommendees, out of 593 Judges appointed from 01.01.2021 till 30.01.2026, 26 belong to SC category, 14 belong to ST category, 80 belong to OBC category and 37 belong to the minority category. 96 women were appointed as Judges in various High Courts during the same period.”
The minister also pointed to the existing appointment mechanism, stating, “As per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court vests with the Chief Justice of India, while the responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in High Courts vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.”
He added that the Centre had been consistently urging the judiciary to broaden representation, saying, “However, the Government is committed to enhancing social diversity in judiciary and has been requesting the Chief Justices of High Courts that while sending proposals for appointment of Judges, due consideration be given to suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities and Women to ensure social diversity in the appointment of Judges in High Courts.”
Reacting strongly to the figures, Wilson described the situation as alarming and indicative of structural bias.
“As we enter the 76th year of our constitution, concerning trends persist in the composition of the High Court judges, with declining representation from various sections of society. There is a notable diversity deficit in High Courts, which does not reflect the wonderfully diverse and pluralistic society of India. Many social groups are underrepresented in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. There is evident discrimination in the recruitment process for High Court judges,” he wrote in a post on X.
Breaking down the data further, Wilson said the figures showed that only 4.38% of high court judges belonged to the SC category, 2.36% to STs and 13.49% to OBCs, while 79.76% came from what he termed “Forward caste” backgrounds.
He also pointed out that earlier data reflected a similar pattern, noting that between 2018 and October 30, 2024, SC representation stood at 3.07%, STs at 2.05% and OBCs at 11.99%, with the remaining 82.89% drawn from upper castes.
“This suggests that the rights of the downtrodden may not be adequately safeguarded, potentially leading to infringements and violations. People are concerned that a narrow, homogeneous group of judges from certain classes may not reflect society’s diverse views and values, especially on issues related to culture and generational differences, as they tend to interpret laws based on their own backgrounds,” he said.
Emphasising the need for reform, Wilson added, “A more diverse judiciary is essential; without it, the rights of underrepresented groups are at greater risk, which could, in turn, lead to discrimination. The lack of judges from historically oppressed groups is telling; it is not due to a lack of qualifications or non-availability, but a firm decision to discriminate and keep them away from the judiciary.”
Calling for systemic change, the DMK leader demanded a constitutional amendment to ensure proportionate representation of SCs, STs and OBCs in appointments to the high courts and the Supreme Court, arguing that the “overrepresentation of certain groups” raises serious questions about “the objectivity of the current collegium system and its failure to recruit from across social divides”.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment