Upper‑Caste Dominance in Recent Supreme Court and High Court Appointments: Law Ministry’s Parliamentary Disclosure

Background

On 5 February 2026 the Union Law Ministry responded to a written query raised by Rajya Sabha member P. Wilson concerning the social composition of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts since 1 January 2021. The reply, delivered by Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, provided a statistical breakdown of caste, community and gender representation among the 593 judges appointed to the higher judiciary during the five‑year period.

Statistical Overview of Appointments (2021‑2026)

• Upper‑caste (general category) judges: 436 (73.52%)
• Scheduled Castes (SC): 26 (4.38%)
• Scheduled Tribes (ST): 14 (2.36%)
• Other Backward Classes (OBC): 80 (13.49%)
• Minority communities: 37 (6.23%)
• Women judges: 96 (across all categories)

Constitutional Framework Governing Judicial Appointments

The Ministry reiterated that the Constitution of India does not provide for any form of reservation in appointments to the Supreme Court or the High Courts, as stipulated by Articles 124, 217 and 224. Consequently, there is no statutory requirement for maintaining a central repository of caste‑wise data. Nevertheless, since 2018, the High Court recommendee form has required candidates to disclose their social background in a format prepared in consultation with the Supreme Court, enabling the aggregation of the figures presented to Parliament.

Government’s Stance on Social Diversity

While the collegium system—headed by the Chief Justice of India for Supreme Court appointments and by the respective Chief Justices for High Court appointments—remains the sole conduit for judicial selections, the Ministry affirmed that the executive has repeatedly urged High Courts to give “due consideration” to candidates from SC, ST, OBC, minority communities and women. These exhortations aim to enhance representational diversity without contravening the constitutional prohibition on formal reservations.

Discussion on Regional Benches of the Supreme Court

The reply also addressed the ancillary query regarding the establishment of regional benches. Article 130 authorises the Supreme Court to sit outside Delhi only with the President’s approval and the Chief Justice’s recommendation. Historical recommendations from the Tenth, Eleventh and Eighteenth Law Commissions—advocating a split Supreme Court or the creation of regional Cassation Benches—were noted, but the Supreme Court Full Court (February 18, 2010) found no justification for such a structural change. A 2016 writ petition on a “National Court of Appeal” remains sub judice before a Constitution Bench.

Current Vacancies in the Higher Judiciary

As of 30 January 2026, 308 sanctioned posts across the High Courts were vacant, leaving the judiciary operating with 814 of the authorized 1,122 judges. Prominent High Courts, including Allahabad, Calcutta and Madras, continue to experience acute shortfalls, raising concerns about case backlog and access to justice.

Conclusion

The data disclosed by the Law Ministry underscores a pronounced skew toward upper‑caste representation in recent judicial appointments, despite constitutional constraints on reservation. While the executive emphasizes procedural encouragement of diversity, the collegium’s discretionary role and the absence of statutory quotas mean that substantive change will depend on the evolving priorities of the judiciary itself.