The need for diversity in the judiciary | Explained

Explore the significance of P. Wilson's Bill for judicial diversity and regional Supreme Court benches in India.

The story so far: P. Wilson, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, has introduced a private member Bill to amend the Constitution in order to bring diversity in judicial appointments and set up regional benches of the Supreme Court.

Article 124 of the Constitution provides that judges of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Similarly, Article 217 provides that judges of a High Court shall be appointed by the President after consulting the CJI, the Chief Justice of the High Court and Governor of the State. Article 130 of the Constitution provides that the seat of the Supreme Court shall be in Delhi or such other place(s) as appointed by the CJI with the approval of central government.

As per the process laid down in the Constitution, judges were appointed by the government after consultation with the judiciary till the 1980s. In the First Judges case (1981), the Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the executive in judicial appointments since it is accountable to the people. However, considering the need to maintain the independence of the judiciary and insulate it from political favouritism, the Supreme Court in the Second Judges case (1993) created the collegium system for the appointment of judges. This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Third Judges case (1998). The collegium consists of the CJI with four senior judges of the SC for appointments to the Supreme Court, and the CJI with two senior judges for appointment to the High Courts. The collegium initiates the proposal for appointment of judges to the higher judiciary and sends the recommendation to the Central government. The Centre may return a recommendation in case of any objection. However, if the collegium reiterates the recommendation, the appointment should be made.

The collegium system has ensured the independence of the judiciary from the executive, in the matter of appointments. Nevertheless, it has its own drawbacks like lack of transparency and accountability. There is also resentment on account of alleged nepotism in this process whereby kith and kin of sitting judges are favoured for appointments to higher judiciary. Parliament through the 99th constitutional amendment in 2014 had set up the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to provide recommendations to the executive for appointment of judges. The NJAC was to consist of the CJI, two senior judges, the Union law minister and two eminent persons. This was however struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 as it violated the basic structure of the independence of the judiciary. Hence, the collegium process continues till date for appointments.

The collegium process lays emphasis on merit in the selection of judges. However, it does not reflect the social diversity of our country. For instance, out of the judges appointed to higher judiciary between 2018 and 2024, only around 20% belonged to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC). The proportion of women and religious minorities is less than 15% and 5% respectively. The Bill introduced by the private member mandates that due representation should be given to SC, ST, OBC, religious minorities and women in proportion to their population while appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High courts. It also sets a maximum timeline of 90 days for the Central government to notify the recommendations of the collegium.

Considering that the Supreme Court only sits in Delhi, access to the highest court for common citizens remains a challenge. There are also more than 90,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court as of January 2026. In order to address these issues, the Bill requires setting up of regional benches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. These regional benches shall exercise full jurisdiction of the Supreme Court except over cases of constitutional importance to be heard by the main Constitution bench in Delhi.