Since India, independence has been won since India, and more than seventy -five years have passed since the constitution came into force. The constitutionalists presented it as a blueprint for equality in order to establish social justice and to guarantee the same rights for all citizens. Despite the existence of legal provisions and affirmative measures, the state of dalits and other marginalized communities has not subjected a significant transformation over the decades, especially in the judiciary.
Despite the existence of legal provisions and affirmative measures, the state of dalits and other marginalized communities has not subjected a significant transformation over the decades, especially in the judiciary.
The Bahujan communities are largely limited to labor-intensive roles, and the long-promised path to socio-economic buoyancy is still evaded. Even today, dalits, minorities and women are fighting systemic discrimination, their voices were often silenced and their challenges overlooked.
The dominance of men of the upper caste shows itself in the large government and private institutions and takes advantage of the power and opportunities in their favor.
Source: Fii
The judiciary, which is supposed to be an impartial institution, is not an exception to social prejudices. The structure of the judiciary in India shows how it represents all social prejudices prevailing in society.
Its composition remains dominated by privileged groups and shows the gap between the ideal of the same justice and the reality of unequal representation.
The legal system continues to exclude Dalits from key positions in the judiciary
On March 20, while he replied to the RJD Major Jhas Question about the inadequate presentation of planned boxes (SCS), planned tribes (STS), other backward classes (OBCs), women and minorities in the higher judiciary, in which he also concerns concerns about their presence far below the desired level under the desired level, according to the scow 2018, this remains in 2018. 16 to ST category 89 to OBCS 37 come from minority communities.
It is obvious that according to this data, the representation of the SC community as a judge at the High Court is only three percent.
In response to concerns about the underrepresentation of Dalits in the higher judiciary, Minister of Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal explained that the judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts are carried out exclusively from constitutional provisions, Article 124, 217 and 224 of the constitution that do not prescribe reservations for a caste or class.
Minister of Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal explained that the judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts are carried out exclusively from constitutional provisions, Article 124, 217 and 224 of the constitution that do not prescribe reservations for a caste or class.
However, this justification raises critical questions. Almost eight decades after independence, should reservation remain the only way for Dalits to achieve power positions? If the lack of reservation is given as a reason for your low representation, will no doubt be dependent on your intellectual skills? After all of these decades, hasn’t India still not achieved an integrative system in which a dalite can achieve an important position based on merit? These questions continue to underline the deep -seat structural inequalities within the judicial system.
Source: Fii
The Minister of Law claimed that the government was obliged to diversity and emphasized that the candidates recommended for judges at the Supreme Court have had to disclose their social background since 2018. He also explained that the main funnel of High Courts are asked to consider candidates from SC, ST, OBC, minority communities and women in order to ensure broader representation. He also admitted that the government has little control over appointments, as only the college recommended by the Supreme Court is selected.
This raises critical questions that the government, when it is really committed to diversity, has initiated meaningful reforms to address the structural exclusion? And prioritize the college, which is constantly released from the judges of the upper caste, or does it only immortalize existing hierarchies under the guise of earnings?
The exclusion of the structural caste at the Supreme Court
As we discussed, the composition of the Indian judiciary continues to reflect the existing cast dynamics, even the Supreme Court, which is largely represented by judges of the Oberkaste.
After an analysis by the Supreme Court observer In 2024With the title “Supreme Court” 2023: The problem of diversity remained a confidence, at least 36.4 percent of the seated judges of the Supreme Court belong to the Brahmin community, while they only make up about five percent of the Indian population in accordance with the 2011 census.
In addition, the bank is also largely represented by judges from other privileged box groups such as Banias, Bengali Kayasthas and Rajputs.
In addition, the bank is also largely represented by judges from other privileged box groups such as Banias, Bengali Kayasthas and Rajputs. In contrast, the inclusion of judges from the Bahujan communities in 2023 was marginal, with only four of the currently 33 judges of the Supreme Court of the Planned Box and other reversing (OBC), which are only 12.1 percent below the estimated 60.53 percent share of SC-OBC.
The underrepresentation of the planned trunks (ST) is even more pronounced, whereby Justice HK Sema (2002–2008) is the only ST judge in the history of the Supreme Court, although the municipality is 8.6 percent of the Indian population.
Source: Fii
This structural inequality also extends to the High Court appointments, whereby the judges from SC, ST and OBC communities, which only make up 17 percent of the persons appointed between 2018 and 2023, include the latest data, then they are almost 17.7 percent.
The caste of the judiciary: The National Commission 2013 for the planned box of the box is still true
The exclusion of marginalized communities from the higher judiciary corresponds to the results of the National Commission for Planned Box in 2013, which found that the judiciary was historically dominated by social groups that are anchored in box prejudices. The lack of diversity on the bench not only limits representation, but also increases the likelihood of judicial bias, since judges can consciously or unconsciously agree with the perspectives and interests of their own communities due to privileged backgrounds.
The reluctance of the college to appoint judges from historically underrepresented regions – especially in the northeastern states (without Assam), Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha, which have a significant planned trunk population, reflects the resistance of the judiciary to expand the social composition. Although the caste is a fundamental aspect of Indian society, the discussions about justice continue to overlook this topic and immortalize an exclusive system that overwhelmes the few privileged people and at the same time refuses fair representation for the communities in Bahujan.
77% India, but only 17% on the bench
According to the 2011 censusThe planned boxes make up 16.6%of the population, planned tribes 8.6%and minority communities 19.3%. However, chicken data for other backward classes (OBCs) were not recorded. The Mandal Commission had estimated its population to 52%. Despite these figures, the judiciary remains mainly from the upper box, with representation of SC, ST and OBC only 17% as a judge at the high courts.
Source: Fii
This is not a coincidence, but a reflection of the systemic prejudices anchored in Indian society. The exclusion of marginalized communities from the judiciary is not accidental, but a deliberate result of firmly anchored power structures, which continue to show appointments to ensure that the social privilege leads to institutional dominance.
Merit or monopoly? The unchanged social order of the judiciary
The exclusion of dalits, adivasis and OBCs from the higher judiciary is not accidental – it reflects how power is preserved in India. Although these communities are the majority of the population, they continue to stay, while the upper boxes continue to dominate judicial appointments. The idea that Kaste is no longer a barrier crumbles when we look at the numbers. If earnings were really the only criterion, why do the same privileged groups occupy these positions according to the generation?
The idea that Kaste is no longer a barrier crumbles when we look at the numbers. If earnings were really the only criterion, why do the same privileged groups occupy these positions according to the generation?
The judiciary, which the guardian of the judiciary is supposed to be, cannot afford to act as an exclusive club for the elite. The lack of reservation in judicial appointments is not the problem – the real problem is a system that refuses to recognize its own prejudices. Without structural change, the promise of justice for the denied representation remains hollow.
This is not just about filling odds. It is about disassembling a hierarchy that is undisputed too long. A judiciary that does not reflect the people who serve to lose credibility. If equality before the law is a constitutional promise, representation on the bank must reflect this reality. Otherwise justice remains what it was always in this country, an advantage for the few, no right for everyone.
