In response to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal stated in a written reply that since 2018, 715 judges have been appointed to various High Courts. Among them, 22 are from the Scheduled Castes (SC), 16 from the Scheduled Tribes (ST), 89 from Other Backward Classes (OBC), and 37 from minority communities.
This means that 164 judges appointed since 2018 come from SC, ST, OBC, and minority groups, while the remaining 551 judges belong to upper castes. This makes the share of upper-caste judges in High Courts around 77.06%.
The query regarding social diversity in the higher judiciary was raised by Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Shri Manoj Kumar Jha of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). The questions were directed to the Minister of Law and Justice, Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal, in the Rajya Sabha.
Questions Asked
MP Shri Manoj Kumar Jha raised the following inquiries regarding the representation of marginalized communities in the higher judiciary:
- Whether the Government is aware that the representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), women, and minorities in the higher judiciary remains far below the desired level; if so, the details thereof.
- Whether there has been a declining trend in the appointment of judges from marginalized communities in recent years; if so, the reasons for the same.
- Whether the Government has pursued the Supreme Court for the finalization of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) incorporating social diversity in judicial appointments; if so, the status thereof.
- The steps taken to ensure adequate representation of marginalized sections in judicial appointments; if so, the details thereof.
Reply Given by the Minister of Law and Justice
Responding to the queries, Minister Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal provided the following details:
- Lack of Reservation in Judicial Appointments:
- The appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts is governed by Articles 124, 217, and 224 of the Constitution of India. These provisions do not mandate any reservation for specific castes or classes in judicial appointments.
- Consequently, category-wise data on SCs, STs, and OBCs in the judiciary is not maintained centrally.
- Current Representation Statistics:
- Since 2018, judicial nominees for High Court appointments are required to disclose their social background in a prescribed format, which was developed in consultation with the Supreme Court.
- Out of the 715 High Court judges appointed since 2018:
- 22 belong to the SC category,
- 16 belong to the ST category,
- 89 belong to the OBC category,
- 37 belong to Minority communities.
- Government’s Role in Promoting Diversity:
- As per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the responsibility for initiating proposals for appointing Supreme Court judges lies with the Chief Justice of India, while for High Court judges, it rests with the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts.
- The Government has consistently urged Chief Justices of High Courts to consider candidates from SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, and women while making recommendations to promote social diversity.
- However, only those candidates who are recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium are appointed as judges.
Analysis of the Reply
The Minister’s response highlights key systemic barriers to improving representation in the higher judiciary:
- No Reservation Policy:
- The judiciary does not follow a reservation system, which limits direct measures to ensure adequate representation.
- This contrasts with other government sectors where reservations are mandated.
- Limited Government Influence:
- While the government can suggest and encourage diverse judicial appointments, the final selection rests with the Supreme Court Collegium.
- This restricts direct intervention by the government in shaping judicial diversity.
- Minimal Progress in Representation:
- The numbers provided indicate a slow and minimal inclusion of marginalized groups.
- The data suggests that SC, ST, OBC, and minority representation remains significantly low compared to their population proportion.
- Challenges in Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) Implementation:
- The lack of clarity on the status of MoP finalization suggests delays or lack of consensus in institutionalizing social diversity in judicial appointments.
Quoting the Answer
Minister Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal stated:
“Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts is made under Articles 124, 217, and 224 of the Constitution of India, which do not provide for reservation for any caste or class of persons. Therefore, category-wise data pertaining to representation of SCs, STs, and OBCs among the Judges of High Courts is not centrally available. However, the Government is committed to enhancing Social Diversity, and since 2018, the recommendees for the post of High Court Judges are required to provide details regarding their social background in the prescribed format (prepared in consultation with the Supreme Court).”
“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 the High Courts vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. However, the Government 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. Only those persons who are recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, are appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.”
Click Here To Read Unstarred Question And Law Minister’s Response
