60% Judicial Officers Are Women Appointed on Merit: Supreme Court Opposes Chamber Quota for Women Lawyers

CT Team 3 min read October 15, 2025 at 10:28 am

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that nearly 60% of the country’s judicial officers are women who earned their positions purely on merit. Against this backdrop, the Court termed it “paradoxical” for women advocates to seek preferential treatment in chamber allotment.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made these observations while hearing a plea filed by a group of women lawyers, including former office-bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA). The petitioners sought directions for framing a gender-sensitive policy for allotting professional chambers to women advocates in the Supreme Court and other courts across the country.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued that the existing chamber allotment policy, though seemingly neutral, is substantively discriminatory as it fails to address the structural disadvantages faced by women, particularly first-generation practitioners lacking established legal networks.

They urged the Court to introduce a quota or priority-based system for women in future chamber allocations and requested interim relief directing the construction of at least 100 cubicles for women advocates on the SCBA waiting list.

Court’s Oral Observations

Justice Surya Kant noted that a majority of judicial officers are women who achieved their positions through merit, without any reservation.

“In our judicial service, almost 60% of officers are women. There is no reservation or preference for them. That is why it seems paradoxical when a plea for preferential chamber allotment is made,” the Court remarked.

The Bench added that if preference were to be extended to women, similar consideration should also be given to specially-abled persons, who equally deserve better infrastructure support.

Response from Petitioners

Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing the petitioners, submitted that only the Rohini Court in Delhi has a policy reserving 10% of chambers for women. She highlighted that all eight petitioners in the case are experienced practitioners but have yet to be allotted chambers.

Justice Kant, however, remarked that women in the legal profession have “successfully struggled” and achieved great progress. Mathur clarified that the petition does not question women’s merit but seeks better infrastructure and facilities for women lawyers.

Suggestions from the Court

Justice Kant further suggested that the traditional chamber system could be phased out in favour of shared workstations, which would be more efficient and inclusive. He also noted that the construction of the new Supreme Court building has already begun, which will include:

Separate bar rooms for women,
Office-bearers’ rooms,
Canteens, libraries, and
Accessibility features such as escalators and facilities for specially-abled persons.

These facilities, the Court said, have been designed keeping in mind the judiciary’s long-term needs for the next 50 years.

Next Steps

The Bench issued notices to the Central Government, SCBA, Bar Council of India, and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court, seeking their responses. The matter will be heard again on 17th November 2025.

Advocates Bhakti Pasrija, Prernaa Singh, Savita Devi, Shubhi Bhardwaj, Manasi Sridhar, and Divyesh Pratap Singh also appeared for the petitioners.