Gavai, who took charge as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on 14 May 2025 and will retire on 23 November the same year, emphasised that his disappointment stemmed from the gender-gap in appointments to the top court even as his collegium achieved relative gains in High Courts. Sources note that his panel recommended three judges to the Supreme Court on 26 May 2025, but none of them were women.
The appointment of 16 women judges across various High Courts under his oversight, including senior lawyers practising in the Supreme Court, was described by Gavai as a positive step. He suggested this lent “fresh blood” to the judiciary, but added it “does not compensate” for the lack of a woman judge in the apex court’s highest-ranking appointments. Legal observers say that the disparity highlights long-standing structural barriers in the judicial elevation process.
Gender representation in the Supreme Court remains unusually low. Currently there is only one woman judge in active service at the apex court, A B V Nagarathna, who is also in line to become India’s first female Chief Justice in 2027. Despite reforms and periodic assurances, the last appointment of a woman judge to the Supreme Court predates Gavai’s tenure. Critics argue that the seniority-based elevation system, combined with a limited vacancy cycle, has made meaningful gender balance difficult to achieve.
Gavai addressed the wider context of diversity in the judiciary when he delivered a public lecture earlier this year: “The first-call on High Court judges is with the High Court collegiums”, he said, stressing that the apex court bench cannot dictate nominations. That remark was interpreted as a signal that the wider pool of female advocates and High Court judges remains under-considered for Supreme Court elevation.
Behind the scenes there are signs of frustration among female legal practitioners and advocacy groups. A campaign led by the Group for Equal Justice in the Supreme Court recently questioned why no woman featured in the list of three names recommended for the top court during Gavai’s term. The group cited that though the 16 women appointed to High Courts improve numbers at one level, they do not yet translate into the apex bench where the decision-making influence is greatest.
Gavai’s tenure was short by design; he had less than seven months from his appointment to retirement, which limited the number of Supreme Court vacancies he could fill. According to an analysis published by legal journals, this shorter term has meant fewer opportunities to rectify historic gender imbalances. One commentator noted: “A six-month term cannot compensate for decades of under-representation.”