Supreme Court Reveals Increased Diversity in High Court Judge Appointments

By: WE staff | Wednesday, 7 May 2025

• Supreme Court posts collegium appointment statistics for first time for judges to High Court
• Statistics show growing diversity in appointments, with strong representation of women, OBCs, and minorities
• The SC segmented data by caste, gender, and minority status in order to increase transparency

For the first time, the Supreme Court has come out with elaborate statistics on collegium recommendations to appoint judges to high courts and presented a clear-cut trend of diversification. According to the statistics, a very large percentage of the judges appointed in the last two and a half years belong to the traditional underprivileged sections, i.e., women, OBCs, minorities, SCs, and STs.

Between November 9, 2022, and May 5, 2025, 192 judges were appointed in different high courts. Out of them, 16 percent belonged to OBCs, minorities 15.9 percent, women 17.5 percent, SCs 4 percent, STs 3.6 percent, MBCs 3.6 percent, and the remaining 32 percent were general category. The Court further released figures indicating that only 14 appointees (7.2 percent) were connected to serving or retired Supreme Court or High Court judges, defying the popular perception that judicial appointments overwhelmingly favor people with family connections in the judiciary.

Under Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna from November 2024 to May 5, 2025, the collegium cleared 51 out of 103 candidates. This group consisted of 11 OBCs, 1 SC, 2 STs, 8 minorities, and 6 women, with only 2 having family connections to current or former judges.

The Court also touched upon issues regarding the role of the executive in stalling judicial appointments. Of the 170 collegium recommendations between November 2022 and November 2024, only 17 are pending with the Centre. Of the recent 51 recommendations, 12 are pending approval. In four instances, the Centre has stalled decisions for over two years.

In 2023, the Supreme Court criticized the government's selective manner of clearing names as unacceptable and warned that such delays give the wrong signal about the appointment process. The Court continues to monitor the progress of judicial appointments and transfers in high courts to maintain transparency and accountability.