Women in law: India’s legal system has a gender problem. While it speaks the language of equality with great fluency, equality often arrives late in the judiciary with an evident absence of women on the Bench. According to a recent survey by the Supreme Court Bar Association, over 80% of women lawyers reported that the profession is difficult. The figures become even more alarming when the absolute number of women lawyers is considered. Women today constitute only about 15% of India’s lawyers and barely 2% of them hold leadership positions in Bar Councils.
What keeps them at bay is networks surrounded around men, informal mentorship and financial endurance. Notably, these are also the areas where women continue to face structural disadvantages. The takeaway is that the profession itself is unevenly designed. More importantly, most women in the profession are first-generation lawyers, making it even more difficult for them to break the glass ceiling.
READ | Gender statistics, unpaid work, and the limits of labour data
Women in law face structural barriers
Litigation demands a peculiar form of patience. It asks young lawyers to wait for clients, for recognition, for that one breakthrough brief that might change trajectories. For many, this waiting is cushioned by family connections, chambers that function as informal guilds or networks that quietly circulate opportunities.
Women lawyers sadly find these privileges out of reach. This wait can become a wall. Nearly 60% of respondents in the SCBA survey cited limited work opportunities as a major challenge. Over 40% pointed to pay disparities and networking barriers. The profession is notorious for gatekeeping, and who gets briefed, who gets seen, who gets remembered is an opaque working mechanism.
The opacity has another consequence. The SCBA survey found that 16.1% of respondents reported sexual harassment in professional settings, while 57% of those who reported harassment or sought remedies said they faced backlash. That matters because exclusion in law is not only about missed opportunities. It is also about the risks women face when they speak up. A profession that leaves advancement to informal networks and private patronage also makes misconduct harder to report and easier to punish.
READ | Digital gender gap a drag on India’s growth story
The problem is when there are fewer women lawyers, it automatically translates into fewer judges as well as the Bar is not an isolated universe. Judges in the higher judiciary are frequently drawn from the ranks of senior advocates and experienced litigators. When women are filtered out or discouraged at the Bar, the effects cascade upward. The judiciary hence inherits the inequalities of the profession it recruits from.
Gender gap in the judiciary remains stark
In the Supreme Court, only one of the 33 judges is a woman. Across high courts, women constitute roughly 14% of the bench and that translates to 116 out of 814 judges. Chief Justice Surya Kant recently observed that achieving gender balance in the judiciary remains an unfinished task. However, this is not a project in progress and this structure needs to be fundamentally reimagined.
The contrast with the lower judiciary is telling. India Justice Report 2025 noted that women account for about 38% of the district judiciary, far above their share in the high courts and the Supreme Court. The bottleneck, therefore, is not only entry into the profession. It lies in advancement, visibility and elevation. Women are entering law and the judicial system in meaningful numbers, but the path narrows sharply as one moves towards the constitutional courts.
However, many believe that the law is neutral and judges decide cases based on statutes and precedents rather than personal experience. But neutrality is often an accumulation of perspectives deemed universal. A more diverse judiciary does not imply bias but will enrich interpretation. Women bring to the Bench experiences that can illuminate blind spots, particularly in cases involving gender-based violence, workplace discrimination or family law. More importantly, their presence will also enhance public confidence. A judiciary that does not resemble the society it serves will only look distant.
Bar Council reservation is only a start
There have been some recent moves that signal recognition of the problem. The Supreme Court directed 30% reservation for women in state Bar Councils and leadership positions within the Bar do influence who gets opportunities, who gains visibility and who is eventually considered for elevation. By opening up these spaces, the system begins to correct itself.
But access to leadership is only one part of access to power. In litigation, government empanelment and appointment as panel counsel or law officers shape income, courtroom exposure and professional standing. The SCBA survey found that 67.28% of respondents favoured a mandatory policy for adequate representation of women in such positions, while 55.5% said government panel appointments were easier for men. If the state remains one of the largest sources of legal work, then unequal access to state briefs becomes one more way in which the profession reproduces hierarchy.
However, reservations without reform may be immaterial. The challenges identified by women lawyers require layered responses. Mentorship, for instance, cannot remain an informal privilege extended through personal networks. It needs to be institutionalised and programmes must be made that connect young women lawyers to experienced practitioners. Such mentorship is not just about legal guidance but about navigating the unwritten codes of the profession.
READ | Urban gender gap threatens India’s demographic dividend
The early years of litigation are underpaid and most of the time, even unpaid. For many women, this becomes a point of exit. Targeted financial support, whether through stipends, fellowships, or grants may make the difference between persistence and attrition.
Reforming the pipeline to the Bench
The issue of access to work also demands attention. A more transparent briefing system could level the playing field. Currently, much of this operates through informal channels where hierarchies are reinforced. Opening up these processes would not only benefit women but also enhance the overall efficiency and credibility of the system.
If India is serious about having more women in law, the court infrastructure needs to be updated sincerely. The absence of childcare facilities, inadequate sanitation and rigid working hours create an environment where caregiving responsibilities become almost impossible.
There is also the question of judicial appointments. The collegium system has a direct bearing on representation. A more transparent process could help correct the imbalance. The gender gap in the judiciary is not an isolated anomaly but an outcome of structural features embedded within the profession. Addressing the issues will now need more than incremental change.
A legal system that aspires to uphold equality cannot afford to be unequal in its own functioning. The question is no longer whether change is needed but how long the system can afford to wait before making it. The key additions are grounded in the SCBA survey’s findings on harassment and government briefs, the Supreme Court’s intervention on Bar Council representation, and India Justice Report data on the lower judiciary pipeline.