In a significant move to address perceived social imbalances in India’s higher judiciary, DMK Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate P. Wilson introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026 as a private member’s bill in the Rajya Sabha on February 7, 2026.
The bill proposes amendments to Articles 124, 217, and 224 of the Constitution to mandate proportionate representation—based on population data from a caste census—for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), religious minorities, and women in appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts. It also seeks greater transparency, fixed timelines for appointments, and consultation with state governments in the process. Wilson argued that the higher judiciary remains the only major institution where reservations have not been implemented since Independence, leading to a lack of social diversity.
Previous Attempts to Bring Reservations in Judicial Appointments
The demand for reservations or greater diversity in the higher judiciary is not new but has largely remained at the level of debate and recommendations rather than legislative action.
In 2014, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) submitted a special report recommending that the judiciary be brought under the ambit of constitutional reservations, similar to the executive and legislature.
Former Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana publicly supported 50% reservation for women in the judiciary in 2021 and encouraged demands for representation in law colleges.
A parliamentary panel on judicial reforms has also suggested incorporating provisions for adequate representation of women and marginalised communities in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointments.
Lower judiciary posts in several states already have reservations, but the Supreme Court and High Courts have remained outside its purview. Successive governments, including through statements by Law Ministers, have maintained that Articles 124 and 217 do not provide for caste- or class-based reservations, emphasising merit and the collegium system instead. Wilson’s bill is the first concrete private member’s constitutional amendment attempt to formally introduce proportional quotas.
Reactions of Political Parties
The bill has revived a polarised debate on social justice versus judicial independence. DMK and other Dravidian parties, along with sections of the INDIA bloc, have welcomed it as a long-overdue step towards inclusive representation and fulfilling the Constitution’s social justice mandate. Critics within the BJP and ruling coalition circles have expressed reservations, arguing that the judiciary’s appointments must remain insulated from political quotas to preserve merit and independence. The government has repeatedly stated that no reservation exists or is mandated for constitutional posts like judges and has instead urged High Court collegiums to consider diversity voluntarily while recommending names. Public and social media reactions are divided: supporters hail it as correcting systemic exclusion, while opponents fear it could lead to executive overreach and politicisation of the judiciary.
Position of Higher Judiciary
The higher judiciary has traditionally emphasised merit, integrity, and independence over quotas. Current and former Chief Justices have acknowledged the need for greater diversity—particularly for women—but have stopped short of endorsing formal reservations.
During May 2025, for the first time, the Supreme Court (SC) made public the specific demographic and background data of 192 recommendations it made between November 9, 2022, to early May 2025 to various High courts, to address transparency and perceptions of elitism.
The report specifically addressed the perception that judicial appointments are reserved for the "pedigreed", that is, only 7.2% (14 out of 192) of the appointed judges were related to sitting or retired Supreme Court or High Court judges. In other words, supreme court by the report tried to break the common man perception that only judges son/daughter become high court judges. The report also highlighted recent appointments between November 2024 to May 5, 2025, during CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s Tenure.
Hence, even though higher judiciary have never formally declined reservations, it has publicly stated that it is conscious of the social diversity of India and is striving to make the higher judiciary as socially diverse as possible.
Advantages of Reservation in Higher Judiciary
Disadvantages of reservation in higher judiciary
Legal Feasibility in India
A constitutional amendment would be legally feasible, as Parliament has the power under Article 368 to amend Articles 124, 217, and 224. However, any such change must not violate the “basic structure” of the Constitution, particularly the independence of the judiciary as established in the Kesavananda Bharati case and the Judges Cases. The Supreme Court has consistently held that reservation is not a fundamental right and that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) are enabling provisions (Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)) applicable to “services under the State,” which may not directly cover constitutional judicial posts.
While the amendment route is open, it would likely face legal challenges testing its compatibility with judicial independence. For example, the 99th Amendment (2014), which created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) by altering similar articles, was successfully passed by both Houses with the required majority and ratified by half the states before receiving Presidential assent.
However, the Supreme Court invalidated the NJAC in 2015 (4:1 majority in the Fourth Judges Case) for encroaching on judicial independence and primacy of the collegium—a doctrine now entrenched as part of the basic structure.
Key Challenges in Implementing
Any Country Doing Similar Reservations in Their Judiciary
No major democracy employs strict, population-proportionate caste- or religion-based quotas in higher judicial appointments akin to India’s proposal. However, some countries incorporate diversity considerations:
South Africa: The Constitution explicitly requires that the judiciary reflect the country’s racial and gender demographics as part of its transformation agenda post-apartheid, though it is not a rigid numerical quota but a guiding principle considered alongside merit.
Other nations (e.g., in Europe or Canada) use diversity goals in judicial selection committees—favouring gender balance or regional representation—but selection remains fundamentally merit-based through independent commissions or parliamentary involvement.
Bolivia uniquely elects many judges popularly, incorporating some social representation, but faces criticism for politicisation. Globally, the emphasis is on objective criteria with voluntary diversity targets rather than binding proportional reservations.
Wilson’s bill has spotlighted a long-ignored gap in India’s quest for social justice: the lack of proportional representation in the higher judiciary. While the push for diversity is compelling given persistent under-representation, the proposal raises profound questions about merit, judicial independence, and the separation of powers. Any constitutional amendment would require broad consensus to avoid undermining the very institution it seeks to strengthen. Ultimately, the debate underscores the need for a balanced approach—perhaps through enhanced transparency in the MoP, proactive diversity measures by the collegium, and systemic reforms in legal education—while safeguarding the judiciary’s role as the impartial guardian of the Constitution. Whether Parliament debates and passes the bill remains to be seen, but the conversation it has ignited is unlikely to fade.
GS Paper 2 Practice Questions
PSIR Practice Questions
