Opinion With Justice B R Gavai’s appointment as the second Dalit CJI, Indian judiciary takes a step towards inclusion

The judiciary has long been dominated by the upper castes, particularly Brahmins, often reflecting the structural advantages and networks available to them. Data between 2018 and 2023 indicate that only 17 per cent of High Court appointments were from Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC). A presentation by the Union Law Ministry to a Parliamentary Panel in 2024 further revealed that 79 per cent of all High Court judges appointed in the last five years belonged to upper castes.

One of the critical barriers to reforming the Indian judiciary is the absence of publicly available data on the social identities of judges. While the Supreme Court began collecting data on the caste, gender, and regional backgrounds of High Court appointees in 2018, this information remains inaccessible to the public. Without transparency, meaningful accountability and institutional reform remain difficult to achieve. The judiciary’s reluctance to release caste-, religion-, and region-specific data has only deepened concerns about exclusion and opacity in one of the most powerful branches of the state.

Echoing these concerns, constitutional bodies like the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) have explicitly raised the alarm about the chronic underrepresentation of Dalits in the higher judiciary. In its recommendations, the NCSC has advocated for the establishment of a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and the implementation of reservations in appointments to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Commission emphasised the need to achieve at least 22.5 per cent representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the higher judiciary.

The designated Chief Justice Gavai’s leadership in the Supreme Court doesn’t merely indicate symbolic representation but also the potential to foster a more empathetic and inclusive judicial philosophy. A judiciary that reflects India’s rich social diversity is better equipped to recognise, uphold, and protect the pluralistic values enshrined in the Constitution.

While the question of formal reservations in the Indian judiciary continues to stir constitutional and political debate, there is merit in looking to global practices for guidance and inspiration. For instance, the US Federal Judiciary’s 2020 Strategic Plan explicitly identifies “diversity and respect in the workplace” as core institutional values. Although judicial appointments in the United States are made by the executive, this strategic framework reflects a clear institutional commitment to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion within the judiciary. It underscores the idea that representation matters — not only in who interprets the law, but also in shaping a more responsive and equitable legal system. It sets a clear objective to “strengthen the judiciary’s commitment to workforce diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Ironically, even as such frameworks are being actively challenged and dismantled under the Trump administration’s broader pushback against DEI policies, the Indian Supreme Court’s collegium has an opportunity to chart a progressive course by embracing the values of inclusion and representation in its own judicial system.

The writer is a lawyer working on gender justice, institutional discrimination, land rights of marginalised groups, and digital rights