The credibility of any justice system rests on whether its institutions practise the equality they demand of others. A recent study of 171 justice institutions exposes a structural failure at the heart of the system. The Global Justice 50/50 report, Gender (In)Justice?, finds that women occupy 43% of senior roles and 40% of top offices across courts, law firms, intergovernmental bodies, and legal organisations. These figures may appear to be reassuring but are actually deceptive. The report reveals that the presence of women notwithstanding, men continue to dominate the most consequential positions, holding 71% of top seats in global and regional courts and 80% in international law firms. The imbalance deepens across geography and class: only 9% of the highest offices are held by women from low- and middle-income countries and less than 1% by women from low-income countries. This is not an oversight but an institutional pattern. Just 18% of legal organisations collect or publish sex-disaggregated data based on gender audits that are fundamental to ensuring equitable access. The report also reveals that law schools and legal firms alike rely on vague commitments instead of enforceable rules. Consequentially, equality, in such systems, becomes a claim without actual action.
India’s higher judiciary reflects the same institutional failures. The Supreme Court currently has just one woman judge; no appointment of female judges has taken place since 2021 despite repeated public commitments to improve gender representation. In the high courts, women occupy only a small fraction of sanctioned posts and are often passed over for promotion to higher posts. These are not isolated lapses but features of an institutional design that resists parity. The contradiction extends globally. International institutions that prescribe gender reforms to the Global South routinely fail to meet those standards within their own leadership structures, exposing a gap between advocacy and practice. They set benchmarks for inclusion, transparency, and accountability, yet often operate with opaque hierarchies and limited internal scrutiny. A justice system that does not examine who holds power within it cannot claim neutrality. Reform requires enforceable standards — transparent appointments, publicly available data on leadership composition and pay gaps, and clear, time-bound targets for change. Without such measures, equality remains rhetorical, and institutions continue to reproduce the very hierarchies they claim to dismantle. By providing the first systematic baseline, the Global Justice 50/50 report offers a practical tool for institutions to test themselves against evidence and take steps to make the legal system more equitable.