Source: The Hindu  

Introduction 

While there's much discussion about getting more women to enter the judicial system as lawyers and judges through entry-level measures, this alone isn't enough. The real challenge lies in both entry and retention. Recent data shows encouraging numbers at lower levels (36.3% women in district judiciary) but poor representation at higher levels (13.4% in High Courts and 9.3% in Supreme Court). 

What are the Main Reasons for the women Underrepresentation in the Higher Judiciary? 

• Continuity Requirements:  
  • Judicial Service Rules require 'continuous' practice for elevation to the Bench, which is difficult for women who need to balance family responsibilities without maternity benefits or minimum stipends. 
• Harsh Transfer Policies:  
  • The transfer policies are inflexible and don't consider women's roles as primary caretakers in their households, leading to many dropping out from career advancement opportunities. 
• Poor Infrastructure:  
  • Many courts, including High Courts, lack basic facilities like dedicated washrooms for women, adequate sanitary facilities, and proper waste disposal systems. 
• Limited Family-Friendly Amenities:  
  • There's a shortage of essential support facilities like feeding rooms and crèches, and where they exist, they have restrictive policies (like Delhi High Court's crèche only accepting children under six). 
• Unconscious Gender Bias:  
  • Women judges are often sidelined in administrative duties, as evidenced by their absence from most High Court Building Committees. 
• Representation Gap in Decision-Making:  
  • Limited women representation in High Court Registries and judicial academies means women's perspectives aren't considered in policy-making and gender-sensitization training. 
• The Funnel Effect:  
  • With fewer women in the Bar (only 15.31% of enrolled advocates), there's a smaller pool of candidates who can establish themselves and be considered for elevation to higher positions. 
• Public-Private Divide:  
  • The traditional male-dominated court system hasn't adequately adapted to accommodate women's transition from the private to public sphere, resulting in an environment that's not conducive for women to thrive. 

Why is Prioritizing Women’s Needs Essential for Building an Inclusive Judiciary? 

• Administrative Representation Gap:  
  • There's a clear issue of unconscious gender bias where women judges are often sidelined in administrative duties - for example, most High Court Building Committees (except Delhi, Allahabad, and Himachal Pradesh) lack even a single woman judge. 
• Infrastructure Planning Issues:  
  • Without women in decision-making roles, infrastructure needs are often deprioritized, resulting in inadequate solutions like single toilet blocks or temporary waste disposal bins that don't fully address women's requirements. 
• Policy Development Gaps:  
  • The lack of adequate women representation in High Court Registries and judicial academies means policies aren't shaped by women's perspectives and experiences, leading to incomplete understanding of gender-related challenges. 
• Training and Sensitization Needs:  
  • Women's perspectives are crucial for developing effective gender-sensitization training programs and addressing systemic bias in the judiciary. 
• Holistic Support System:  
  • A female-centric perspective would ensure that women's needs aren't "invisibilized" during policy-making and would help create a more supportive environment within the judiciary that acknowledges their lived experiences and realities. 
• Career Advancement Support:  
  • Prioritizing women's needs would help create better policies for recruitment, transfers, and professional development, ensuring women can advance in their careers while managing their personal responsibilities. 

What Systemic and Policy Gaps Hinder Women's Progression in the Judiciary? 

• Entry Barriers:  
  • Some states' efforts to recruit women at lower judiciary levels, direct recruitment remains challenging due to rules requiring 'continuous' practice periods, which disadvantage women who need career breaks for family responsibilities. 
• Inadequate Support Benefits: 
  •  The lack of maternity benefits and minimum stipends makes it difficult for women advocates to maintain continuous practice and meet eligibility requirements for elevation to the Bench. 
• Inflexible Transfer Policies: 
  • Current transfer policies are rigid and fail to consider women's roles as primary caregivers, creating barriers for career advancement and often forcing women to choose between family responsibilities and career growth. 
• Infrastructure Policy Deficits:  
  • There's a significant gap in policies mandating basic infrastructure requirements for women, such as adequate washrooms, sanitary facilities, and hygienic waste disposal systems in courts. 
• Limited Family Support Policies:  
  • While some courts have introduced family-friendly amenities like crèches, the policies governing these facilities are often restrictive (like age limits) and resources are limited, making them ineffective for working mothers. 
• Retention Policies:  
  • There's a lack of comprehensive policies addressing the retention and career progression of women in higher judiciary positions, creating a "reverse funnel effect" where fewer women reach senior positions.

Conclusion

For meaningful change in women's representation in the judiciary, we need to move beyond just entry-level measures. A female-centric perspective is crucial in policy-making to address specific challenges women face. This includes better infrastructure, gender-sensitive recruitment and transfer policies, and proper training. Only by considering women's lived experiences can the judiciary truly empower women.