Aspiring to Join the Judiciary: A Journey of Reflection
For many aspiring legal professionals, the judiciary epitomizes independence, public service, and an opportunity to wield the law in a manner that significantly impacts lives. As a law student, I envisioned myself as a judge, believing that the judicial services examination was a natural step toward achieving that goal. However, recent events have prompted me to reconsider this path much sooner than anticipated in my career.
Questioning the Path: Influential Readings
The catalyst for my reevaluation came from two recent readings. Bharat Chugh’s article, “1 year or 3 years, we are asking the wrong question,” challenged the prevailing debate on the requisite practice period before judicial service, suggesting that the focus should instead be on broader systemic issues. Additionally, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising’s remarks about sexual harassment within the judiciary, particularly concerning complaints from women judges, were deeply unsettling. On September 1, 2026, she highlighted cases where women judges approached her regarding misconduct by male judges. While the subjects of these readings differ, one discussing entry into the judiciary and the other addressing workplace conditions, they collectively spurred introspection about the professional life I might be choosing.
Beyond the Examination: A Career’s True Beginning
The discourse surrounding judicial recruitment often emphasizes eligibility criteria, debating whether one or three years of practice yields better judges. Yet, this focus overlooks critical questions about the career path that follows. For young law students, passing the examination is merely the beginning. Considerations extend to postings, career progression, and the long-term viability of such a career.
Within the subordinate judiciary, career advancement is a pressing concern. While some judicial officers might eventually ascend to High Courts, this progression is not a guaranteed trajectory. It is crucial to understand the factors influencing these advancements, such as transparency in the promotion process, the number of women reaching higher echelons, and the criteria governing such decisions.
Women’s Representation: A Closer Examination
Women are not absent from the judiciary, particularly at lower levels. According to data from the Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning, women make up approximately 36.3% of the district judiciary. However, as of July 1, 2026, their representation drops significantly within High Courts, where they constitute about 14.2% of judges, and even more starkly within the Supreme Court, which has only 2 women among its 34 judges. These statistics, though not indicative of systemic bias, raise important questions about women’s professional journeys in the judiciary.
Understanding why fewer women ascend to higher judicial positions requires a deeper dive into potential factors like seniority, professional experience, and personal choices. Without comprehensive data analysis, these remain speculative. It’s imperative to track women’s career trajectories within the judiciary, examining why some stay, progress, or leave the institution altogether.
Personal Concerns: Workplace Safety and Hierarchical Challenges
Indira Jaising’s observations underscore real concerns about workplace safety. The case of Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court addressed the complex scenario involving a female judicial officer’s allegations and subsequent resignation, highlights these issues. While the allegations were not upheld, her reinstatement was ordered, bringing to light the broader question of safety and support for women in the judiciary.
Hierarchy, an inherent aspect of judicial structure, can complicate workplace complaints. Women may hesitate to report harassment when the alleged party holds significant influence or authority, affecting their professional environment. Therefore, while formal complaint mechanisms exist, the perceived safety and impact of utilizing these avenues remain critical.
Moreover, the judiciary’s role in shaping workplace safety laws, as seen in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, necessitates that it also scrutinizes its own adherence to these principles.
Creating an Inclusive Judicial Environment
Ensuring women not only join but thrive within the judiciary involves examining career progression transparency, workplace safety, and gender-disaggregated data. It’s essential to address practical concerns such as transfers, accommodation, and family responsibilities, which disproportionately affect women’s career choices. The lack of adequate facilities, like separate toilets in court complexes, further underscores the need for systemic improvements.
Ultimately, the decision to pursue a judicial career involves more than passing an examination. It requires envisioning a sustainable professional life within the institution. While I remain undecided about taking the judicial services examination, this introspection is vital for any young lawyer considering this path. Institutions must engage with these concerns to foster an environment where women not only enter but remain and grow within the judiciary.
Faiza Kazmi is a law student at Jamia Millia Islamia.
