Over the past six months, the Supreme Court of India has been led by a man who comes from one of the most discriminated communities in India.
Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna GavaiSet to retire on November 23, he briefly gave the country a rare sight – a man with Dalit heritage in power. Dalits belong to the lowest rung in the complex caste system of Indian society, which has its roots in the dominant religion, Hinduism. The caste, once referred to as “untouchable”, still faces discrimination and violence in the country.
Gavai’s father was a prominent leader of the Dalit community, who had converted to Buddhism before Gavai was born. Justice Gavai is also a Buddhist. Throughout his career, he acknowledged his Dalit identity and said that affirmative action helped him reach the top of the Supreme Court. To date, Gavai is the first Buddhist and second Dalit to serve as its Chief Justice.
Despite the rise of Gwaii, women and members of marginalized communities still grapple with historical disadvantage, prejudice and gender discrimination when trying to advance their careers.
DW looked at diversity in India’s top court, taking into account judges’ gender, religion and caste, one of the country’s strongest independent institutions.
What does the data show?
Due to the Supreme Court not providing official data on the caste identity of its members, the caste and religious status of all judges could not be determined with absolute certainty. However, our analysis shows that – of the 33 judges who will remain after Gavai’s retirement, at least 12 are Brahmins, who belong to the highest caste in Hinduism. According to this community is only 4% of the population of India A survey conducted in 2020 by Pew Research CenterIn the Supreme Court, they constitute 36% of the judges,
With eight other judges belonging to other upper castes, those from the privileged Hindu strata will form more than 60% of the court.
In contrast, after Gavai’s exit there will be only one Dalit in the court and none from the group that India officially designates as a Scheduled Tribe (ST). This includes indigenous communities who have been historically marginalized and are entitled to special protection under the Constitution of India. Together with Dalits, they constitute 35% of the Indian population.
Five judges are from Other Backward Classes (OBC). These are also communities identified as socially and educationally deprived by the Indian state. DW could not determine the caste of the three judges.
At least four judges are from minority religions – one Muslim, one Christian, one Parsi and one Jain. Of the 33 judges, only one, Justice BV Nagarathna, is a woman. This is in a country where approximately 48.5% of the population are women. No woman has ever served as Chief Justice.
Shallow pool of diverse candidates
Former Supreme Court judges contacted by DW blame the reduction in the recruitment pool for the lack of diversity at the top level.
“More and more women and underprivileged people are entering the system, but the numbers are not enough,” said Madan Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge who served between 2012 and 2018.
“Historically, the legal profession has been dominated by men and primarily those who are not [from] SC or ST,” he told DW. “Things are definitely changing but the question is, are they changing fast enough?”
Many judges also acknowledged that nepotism still plagues the Indian judiciary, but stressed that more first-generation lawyers and judges are coming in.
Judges climb the career ladder for decades to reach the Supreme Court
Another sign of changing times, 38% The district judiciary judges of India were women. by 2024, compared to 28% just six years ago.
“I have seen changes happening in the last 15-20 years, it is huge,” said former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who retires in November 2024.
The judge, a vocal supporter of transparency, diversity and individual rights, said, “What we have to strive for is that the field of thought – the pool from which we recruit to the Supreme Court – itself is diverse.”
“They’re climbing the ladder.”
However, the judge also said that career progression was “very slow”, meaning that judges who reach the Supreme Court are usually in their late 50s.
‘Things have improved a lot’ for women lawyers
According to a 2022 survey, women constitute only 15% of Indian lawyers.
Former Delhi High Court judge Rekha Palli says most clients still prefer to be represented by men.
“There were only a handful of women with me [in advocacy]Now the situation has improved a lot, but women are still getting less opportunities,”
The judge, who retires early in 2025, also said that not enough women lawyers work in court-facing roles.
“When I talk to young girls as judges and ask them why they’re not debating, sometimes they complain that they’re not getting enough attention. [court cases]”This takes away from them the opportunity to showcase their qualities in front of the court,” he told DW.
Young judges fight for survival
A young judge from northern India, who asked to be named Seema in this article, has to travel hours from her home to hear cases in a lower court. She is the first woman in her family to achieve such a prestigious role, but she also had to face an uphill struggle to land her dream job.
“I wanted to leave it for a few years. As you move from big cities to small towns, the conditions, the treatment, it gets worse,” she told DW.
Recalling incidents of misogyny, he said, “I have been made to serve food to senior judges, bring tea or coffee for them.” “Once, a senior lawyer openly said in the court, ‘What does she know, she is new,'” the judge said.
‘Indian Judiciary is the mirror of Indian society’
Speaking to DW, former judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court clearly denied any kind of discrimination in the judiciary.
Justice Palli said, “It would be wrong to say that there is any systematic discrimination, let me make it clear. If you are good, you will be promoted.”
However, Justice Chandrachud did not deny that there was a “strange case of harassment”.
He said, “The Indian judiciary is the mirror of the Indian society. Therefore to expect that the Indian judiciary will be perfect in the absence of any social bias would perhaps be hypocritical.”
“But there is a robust system for redressal, you can challenge it before the High Court,” he said.
Complaints – a double-edged sword
Seema laughs at the idea of filing an official complaint.
“The judiciary is a tight system that runs on contacts. If I complain, I too will suddenly face complaints. And my annual report will be spoiled,” she told DW.
The annual report records the annual performance and conduct of a judicial officer. This is one of the major considerations when judges are being promoted.
Seema and several other district-level judges DW spoke to said the annual report is a common tool to address “grievances” in the system.
A civil judge from the minority group told DW that he was accused of corruption and transferred without any investigation or hearing his case. “Once a complaint is made, even if it’s unsubstantiated, you can forget about promotions,” he said. “These are all open secrets.”
A former Supreme Court judge, requesting anonymity, said he had heard about misuse of annual reports but had seen no evidence. He discussed that the problem was less about personal vendetta and more about helping the careers of a select few.
Supreme Court condemns caste-based prejudice
However, some widely publicized cases seem to contradict this perspective.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court condemned caste-based discrimination within the judiciary in a case where a lower court judge was given compulsory retirement on the basis of sudden declines and rises in his annual report.
The Supreme Court later quashed his dismissal, saying, “Just because he is from a lower caste, he is being targeted. This is a big problem in the High Court.” times of India Report.
While the case could be considered evidence of discrimination, former judge Chandrachud said it also showed that the redress system was working.
What makes a good Supreme Court judge?
Judges hoping to reach India’s top court must obtain a recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium, composed of the five most senior judges. Their internal deliberations and reasons for considering some names over others are not made public, and rejected candidates have no way to appeal.
Justices Lokur and Chandrachud, who have served on the collegium, said their selection process takes into account seniority, quality of judgment, annual reports and integrity, followed by diversity criteria such as geographical origin, personal experience, caste and religion.
According to Justice Chandrachud, there is a need to reform the entry level of schools and law firms to create a more diverse pool of candidates.
“It is very easy to stand outside the system and throw bricks but it is another thing to actively bring about change,” he said, adding that the current system does not actively deny promotion on the basis of gender, caste or religion.
Justice Lokur said, “If someone has the merit, he will definitely be promoted.” As far as making the deliberations public, he said, “You have to trust the judges.”
But not everyone completely agrees with the current selection system.
New system of selection of judges canceled in Supreme Court
The Government of India, with strong support from the opposition, passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill in 2014, outlining the mechanism to replace the collegium. Instead the judges will be selected by a committee comprising the Chief Justice of India, the two senior-most judges, the Law Minister and two “eminent” persons who are not from judicial background.
In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the bill saying that the participation of non-judicial members would compromise its independence.
District Judge Seema said, “Whenever someone questions the high courts on accountability, they revive the independence and meritocracy argument at the cost of transparency. Without reforms nothing will change in the system.”
With Gavai’s departure and more judges retiring in 2026, the Supreme Court will once again have a chance to improve its diversity. But perhaps the key to any systemic change is to first acknowledge that the system needs change.
Edited by: Darko Janjevic