Saurabh Mukherjee
The Union government informed the Rajya Sabha on Thursday (March 20) that less than 23% of judges appointed to high courts across the country since 2018 belong to Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and minority communities.
In a written response to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Kumar Jha, Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal stated that judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and high courts are made under Articles 124, 217, and 224 of the Constitution, which do not provide for caste- or class-based reservations.
Out of the 715 high court judges appointed over the past six years, 22 are from the SC category, 16 from the ST category, 89 from OBCs, and 37 from minority communities.
“Based on the information provided by the nominees, of the 715 high court judges appointed since 2018, 22 are from the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, 16 from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, 89 from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, and 37 from minority communities,” Meghwal said.
However, Meghwal noted that the government does not centrally maintain category-wise data on representation in the judiciary.
“The government remains committed to promoting social diversity, and since 2018, candidates recommended for high court judgeships have been required to disclose their social background in a prescribed format,” he added.
Responding to Jha’s query about the underrepresentation of marginalized communities in the higher judiciary, the minister acknowledged the concern but emphasized that judicial appointments are based on recommendations from the Supreme Court collegium.
“Only those recommended by the Supreme Court collegium are appointed as judges,” he said.
To enhance social diversity, Meghwal said the government has been urging high court chief justices to consider candidates from SC, ST, OBC, minority communities, and women while making recommendations.
Additionally, since 2018, judicial candidates have been required to disclose their social background in a prescribed format prepared in consultation with the Supreme Court.
The government’s statement has fueled the ongoing debate over the lack of diversity in judicial appointments, raising concerns that representation from marginalized groups remains significantly inadequate.
In a written response to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Kumar Jha, Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal stated that judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and high courts are made under Articles 124, 217, and 224 of the Constitution, which do not provide for caste- or class-based reservations.
Out of the 715 high court judges appointed over the past six years, 22 are from the SC category, 16 from the ST category, 89 from OBCs, and 37 from minority communities.
“Based on the information provided by the nominees, of the 715 high court judges appointed since 2018, 22 are from the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, 16 from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, 89 from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, and 37 from minority communities,” Meghwal said.
However, Meghwal noted that the government does not centrally maintain category-wise data on representation in the judiciary.
“The government remains committed to promoting social diversity, and since 2018, candidates recommended for high court judgeships have been required to disclose their social background in a prescribed format,” he added.
Responding to Jha’s query about the underrepresentation of marginalized communities in the higher judiciary, the minister acknowledged the concern but emphasized that judicial appointments are based on recommendations from the Supreme Court collegium.
“Only those recommended by the Supreme Court collegium are appointed as judges,” he said.
To enhance social diversity, Meghwal said the government has been urging high court chief justices to consider candidates from SC, ST, OBC, minority communities, and women while making recommendations.
Additionally, since 2018, judicial candidates have been required to disclose their social background in a prescribed format prepared in consultation with the Supreme Court.
The government’s statement has fueled the ongoing debate over the lack of diversity in judicial appointments, raising concerns that representation from marginalized groups remains significantly inadequate.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment