Gender bias in appointments at different judicial levels, whether in explicit or implicit forms, has been a prominent cause of the skewed gender ratio in the higher Indian judiciary. By basing this assertion on empirically collected qualitative and quantitative data, this piece argues that such bias operates in two forms: Structural bias and discretionary bias. Structural bias encompasses the biases embedded in judicial selection policies: First, the Supreme Court’s unwritten “seniority norm,” which favors the selection of the senior-most High Court judges to the apex court; and second, the “transfer policy” at the subordinate judicial level, which prohibits the appointment of judges at their place of residence or that of their spouse have emerged implicitly gender-biased. Discretionary bias includes biases exercised by judicial decision-makers based on their conscious or unconscious preferences have emerged implicitly gender-biased. This piece concludes that the prominent reason for gender-biased appointments is the failure by policymakers and decision-makers to consider women’s differential responsibilities of motherhood and marriage, and the lack of responsibility-sharing by their husbands.

Keep Reading Structural and Discretionary Bias: Appointment of Female Judges in India