Republic Day reflections: Can we finally remove the blindfold of justice?
On this Republic Day, as we reflect on the progress and challenges of our democracy, the judiciary must confront its shortcomings and recommit to its foundational principles of justice and equality, writes Naina Bhargava.
Published on: 26 January 2025, 10:58 am
AS India celebrates its 76th Republic Day, it is a moment to assess the judiciary— one of the bedrocks of democracy. While progress has been made, systemic inequalities and entrenched biases within the judiciary prevent it from achieving true impartiality. The promise of justice, envisioned as universal and equitable, often fails to reach those on society’s margins.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, once declared, “Justice is not a commodity that can be bought or sold. It is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen.”
However, this ideal is frequently undermined by structural inequalities, leaving women, Dalits, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other marginalised communities struggling to access their constitutional rights. The judiciary, entrusted with safeguarding these rights, often mirrors the very prejudices it seeks to dismantle.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, once declared, “Justice is not a commodity that can be bought or sold. It is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen.”
Gender bias in the judiciary
Gender inequality within the judiciary is both glaring and persistent. Women, despite forming nearly half of India’s law graduates, make up just 15.31 percent of practising lawyers and less than 14 percent of high court judges. Of the 719 sitting high court judges, only 99 are women. The situation is equally dismal in the Supreme Court, where female representation has always been negligible.
Beyond the statistics, the treatment of women within courtrooms reflects the entrenched sexism in the legal system. In 2024, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court made a crude remark to a female lawyer, reducing her professional credibility by saying she might “reveal the color of his [a person involved in the case] undergarment”.
Such incidents underscore the hostile environment women face in the legal profession, where they are routinely undermined and belittled. Court rulings have also perpetuated patriarchal stereotypes.
In multiple divorce cases, judges have invoked regressive notions, describing the ideal wife as “a minister in purpose, a slave in duty, Lakshmi in appearance, and a prostitute in bed”. These remarks not only reflect societal biases but also perpetuate harmful norms that alienate women seeking justice.
Bias against LGBTQ+ communities
For the LGBTQ+ community, the judiciary has been both a source of hope and disappointment. While the landmark Navtej Singh Johar versus Union of India judgment decriminalised homosexuality, systemic bias against queer individuals persists.
In 2024, a high court judge dismissed a same-sex couple’s plea with disdain, labelling their relationship “immoral”. Such incidents highlight the judiciary's reluctance to embrace inclusivity and challenge societal prejudices.
The case of Saurabh Kirpal, a senior advocate whose elevation to the Delhi High Court has been stalled, further illustrates this bias. The objections to Kirpal’s appointment— based on his sexual orientation and his partner’s foreign nationality— expose the judiciary's failure to rise above narrow societal norms.
Moreover, the absence of official data on LGBTQ+ representation in the judiciary underscores the systemic exclusion faced by the community. This lack of representation not only limits diversity but also impairs the judiciary's ability to understand and address the unique challenges faced by sexual minorities.