Introduction:
The present writ petition titled Mani Munjal and Others v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 400/2026, came before a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi. The petition raised a significant constitutional and policy question concerning gender representation in the Indian judiciary and government legal services. The petitioners approached the Court seeking a direction to earmark up to 50% of vacancies for women across various judicial and quasi-judicial posts, including appointments to the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate judiciary, as well as positions such as panel counsel and standing counsel representing governments.
The petition also extended its scope to demand similar reservations in promotions within the judicial services, particularly from the Provincial Judicial Services to the Higher Judicial Services. The matter thus touched upon not only constitutional principles of equality and representation but also the delicate balance between judicial intervention and executive policymaking.
However, at the threshold stage itself, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), emphasizing that such issues are better addressed through policy deliberations rather than judicial mandates. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to make a comprehensive representation to the appropriate authorities, thereby redirecting the issue from judicial scrutiny to administrative consideration.
Arguments by the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, advanced a case rooted in the principles of gender equality, social justice, and constitutional morality. They argued that despite constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 16, women remain significantly underrepresented in the judiciary and in government legal panels across India.
The central contention was that the absence of adequate representation of women in judicial institutions undermines the legitimacy and inclusivity of the justice delivery system. The petitioners emphasized that the judiciary, as a pillar of democracy, must reflect the diversity of the society it serves. They pointed out that while there have been incremental improvements in recent years, the pace of change remains slow and insufficient to address the historical imbalance.
To remedy this disparity, the petitioners sought a direction mandating that up to 50% of vacancies in judicial appointments—particularly in High Courts and the Supreme Court—be filled by eligible women candidates. They urged the Court to direct the Union Government and the Collegium system to ensure gender parity while making recommendations to the President for judicial appointments.
Further, the petitioners extended their demand to the executive branch, seeking similar reservations in appointments of law officers such as standing counsel, panel counsel, and government advocates at all levels of courts. They argued that these positions play a crucial role in shaping legal discourse and policy implementation, and thus must also reflect gender diversity.
Additionally, the petitioners sought directions to State Governments to introduce a 50% reservation for women in the Higher Judicial Services and Provincial Judicial Services. They also requested that such reservation be extended to promotional avenues, ensuring that women are adequately represented at higher levels of judicial hierarchy.
The petitioners relied on comparative jurisprudence and international best practices to support their claims, arguing that several jurisdictions have adopted affirmative measures to improve gender representation in the judiciary. They contended that the Indian judiciary, being a progressive institution, should take proactive steps to address systemic inequalities.
Arguments by the Respondents / Observations of the Court:
While the Union of India and other respondents were yet to formally present their detailed counterarguments, the Court itself expressed significant reservations regarding the maintainability and appropriateness of the petition.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant made strong oral observations cautioning against the filing of such PILs. He remarked, “Don’t embarrass us and create complications for yourself,” indicating the Court’s discomfort with being asked to issue directions on matters that fall squarely within the domain of policy-making.
The Bench emphasized that the issue of reservation or earmarking of posts involves complex considerations, including administrative feasibility, constitutional limitations, and the separation of powers. The Court noted that while the objective of enhancing women’s representation is laudable, it cannot be achieved through judicial directives in the absence of a clear constitutional or statutory mandate.
The judges further observed that the judiciary must exercise restraint in matters that require legislative or executive action. They highlighted that judicial intervention is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear violation of fundamental rights or a failure of constitutional machinery.
The Court also acknowledged that steps are already being taken to improve gender representation in the legal field. However, it cautioned that systemic change is gradual and cannot be enforced overnight through judicial orders. The Bench underscored the importance of allowing institutional processes to evolve organically rather than imposing rigid quotas through judicial fiat.
Court’s Judgment:
In its decision, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the Public Interest Litigation, effectively dismissing it at the preliminary stage. The Court held that it would not be expedient to take up the issue on the judicial side, particularly in the absence of any peculiar facts or circumstances warranting judicial intervention.
The Bench reiterated the principle of separation of powers, emphasizing that matters relating to reservation policies and appointment procedures fall within the purview of the legislature and the executive. The judiciary, while empowered to interpret the Constitution, must refrain from encroaching upon domains reserved for other branches of government.
Importantly, the Court did not dismiss the concerns raised by the petitioners outright. Instead, it adopted a balanced approach by granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to the concerned stakeholders, including the Government of India, State Governments, and relevant authorities involved in judicial appointments.
This direction reflects the Court’s recognition of the importance of the issue while simultaneously respecting institutional boundaries. By redirecting the petitioners to the appropriate forums, the Court ensured that the matter receives due consideration without overstepping its constitutional role.
The Court’s observations also serve as a reminder that Public Interest Litigations must be carefully framed and should not seek to compel the judiciary to undertake functions that are inherently legislative or executive in nature.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the ongoing tension between judicial activism and judicial restraint. On one hand, the judiciary has historically played a proactive role in advancing social justice and protecting fundamental rights. On the other hand, it has consistently emphasized the need to respect the separation of powers and avoid encroaching upon policy domains.
The issue of women’s representation in the judiciary is undeniably महत्वपूर्ण. Despite constitutional guarantees, the participation of women in higher judicial offices remains disproportionately low. While several High Courts have seen an increase in women judges, the overall percentage still falls short of parity.
However, the Court’s reluctance to mandate reservations through judicial orders stems from the recognition that such measures require comprehensive policy frameworks, stakeholder consultations, and possibly legislative backing. Imposing a blanket 50% quota without addressing underlying structural issues could lead to unintended consequences.
The Court’s suggestion to approach the matter through representations allows for a more nuanced and deliberative process. It opens the door for dialogue between various stakeholders, including the judiciary, executive, bar associations, and civil society.