while at the district level, although representation is slightly better, structural barriers persist. This underrepresentation is not a matter of optics alone—it influences jurisprudence. A diverse bench, reflective of society’s realities, brings perspectives that enrich constitutional reasoning and strengthen public trust.

Jurisprudence shaped by gender sensitivity

The judiciary has, at times, been a progressive force for gender justice. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines against workplace sexual harassment, filling a legislative vacuum. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), it struck down triple talaq as unconstitutional, affirming Muslim women’s dignity. More recently, in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Court decriminalized adultery, rejecting patriarchal notions of women as property.

Yet, the journey has been uneven. Earlier judgments, such as State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952), declined to test personal laws against fundamental rights, thereby entrenching gender discrimination in matters of marriage and inheritance. Even in criminal law, interpretations of “outraging modesty” or “good character” of women often carried patriarchal undertones. The task of inclusive jurisprudence lies in moving decisively away from such stereotypes towards rights-based reasoning.

Beyond tokenism: structural reforms

Achieving inclusivity in jurisprudence requires more than appointing women judges—it demands restructuring legal processes and reasoning. Gender sensitivity training for judges and lawyers, greater diversity in judicial appointments, and transparent institutional reforms are critical. Equally, procedural innovations such as gender-neutral courtrooms, support systems for survivors of violence, and accessible legal aid for marginalized women can make justice delivery more equitable.

The judiciary must also ensure that interpretation of laws reflects constitutional morality, not social prejudice. For instance, cases of marital rape, still unrecognized as an offence under Indian law, test the judiciary’s willingness to prioritize dignity and autonomy over outdated notions of family sanctity. Similarly, recognition of queer and transgender rights—as seen in NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)—demands continued vigilance to translate progressive rulings into lived equality.

Comparative lessons

Global experiences underline the value of inclusive jurisprudence. The South African Constitutional Court, with a more diverse bench, has delivered landmark rulings advancing gender and LGBTQ+ rights. The Canadian Supreme Court’s emphasis on “substantive equality” rather than formal equality provides a framework India can emulate. These examples show that inclusivity strengthens not only representation but also the intellectual fabric of judicial reasoning.

Towards a gender-just judicial democracy

For the judiciary, inclusivity is not charity; it is constitutional fidelity. Article 14 guarantees equality before law, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex. The Directive Principles and fundamental duties further push for dismantling patriarchal barriers. The gavel, therefore, must strike not only against individual wrongs but also against systemic inequalities that silence women and gender minorities.

Conclusion

Inclusive jurisprudence is about ensuring that justice is not filtered through a singular, often male-dominated, lens. It requires judges to question stereotypes, to interpret laws in light of lived realities, and to commit to constitutional morality over societal prejudice. A judiciary that is inclusive in composition, sensitive in reasoning, and courageous in action can transform gender justice from aspiration to reality. The gavel, when wielded with inclusivity, can become not just a symbol of authority, but of equality and hope.