The Need for Gender Representation: Women Prosecutors in India

When a rape survivor walks into a courtroom to face cross-examination, the person standing up to prosecute her case on behalf of the state is, more often than not, a man. In a country where crimes against women and children account for a significant portion of criminal trials, the near-absence of women in prosecutorial roles is not just a statistics problem – it is a justice problem. The question of who prosecutes a case shapes how sensitively that case is handled, how a victim’s testimony is received, and ultimately, whether justice is delivered.

The prosecutorial role: a brief overview 🔗

A Public Prosecutor (PP) is defined under Section 2(u) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) as any person appointed under Section 24, who represents the state in criminal trials. The prosecutor is not an advocate for the victim – they represent the state. But in practice, the way a prosecutor handles a case involving a woman or a minor has a direct bearing on whether the survivor’s account is communicated to the court with the sensitivity and rigour it deserves. A prosecutor who approaches a rape trial or a POCSO case with gender awareness is far more likely to frame the narrative in a way that doesn’t inadvertently re-traumatise the victim or water down the charges.

Despite this critical function, the prosecutorial system in India has remained deeply male-dominated. Women prosecutors are a rarity at every level – from the district courts to the High Courts – and this has real consequences for victims of gender-based violence.

The numbers tell the story 🔗

The underrepresentation of women in India’s legal system is well-documented. According to the Supreme Court’s “State of the Judiciary” report (2023), women make up only 13.4% of High Court judges and 9.3% of Supreme Court judges. In the lower courts, the figure improves to about 36%, but even this is a recent development driven largely by transparent competitive examinations at the entry level. Of the approximately 1.7 million registered advocates in India, only around 15% are women, and representation drops further at senior levels and at the Bar Council, where women hold less than 2% of elected positions.

Prosecutors – both Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors – are drawn from this pool of advocates or from state prosecuting cadres. The result is predictable: women prosecutors are a small minority, particularly in the Sessions Courts where serious offences including rape, dowry deaths, and POCSO cases are tried. India has never had a woman Chief Justice of India, and out of 779 permanent and additional judges in the High Courts, only 105 are women – a statistic that reflects the broader gender deficit running through the entire legal apparatus, including prosecution.

Why women prosecutors matter: the case for gender sensitivity 🔗

Crimes against women and children demand a different lens 🔗

In trials involving sexual assault, domestic violence, trafficking, or child abuse, the way evidence is presented and witnesses are examined matters enormously. A qualitative study examining prosecution of rape cases in Kolkata found that prosecutorial responses frequently reflect a patriarchal framework, ranging from indifference to outright insensitivity – meaning victims often feel the legal system has failed them long before the verdict is delivered. This is not merely a perception issue. When a prosecutor lacks gender awareness, cross-examinations can veer into victim-blaming, the framing of charges may underplay the severity of the offence, and the victim’s cooperation with the prosecution can erode.

Women prosecutors bring a lived understanding of the social and psychological dimensions of crimes against women. They are, in many instances, better positioned to communicate with survivors, build confidence during testimony preparation, and anticipate and counter defence strategies that rely on gendered stereotypes. This is not to say that only women can handle such cases – but the systemic exclusion of women from prosecution means that the system is routinely deprived of this perspective.

The BNSS and the legislative signal 🔗

India’s new procedural code, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, which replaced the CrPC, contains provisions that signal legislative awareness of this issue. Section 21 of the BNSS provides that offences involving sexual violence should, wherever possible, be tried by courts presided over by women judges – a recognition that gender-sensitive adjudication matters. Similarly, the POCSO Act’s child-friendly procedural requirements – including the preference for recording evidence in a non-intimidating setting – create a framework where a gender-aware prosecutor becomes critical to effective implementation.

If the law itself acknowledges the need for women judges in sexual violence trials, the logical extension of that principle is the need for women prosecutors in those same proceedings. The prosecutor controls the narrative of the case from the moment charges are framed to the final argument. Their gender sensitivity – or lack of it – shapes every step of that process.

Institutional recommendations: what reform bodies have said 🔗

The Malimath Committee (2003) 🔗

The Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, chaired by Justice V.S. Malimath, submitted its landmark report in 2003 with 158 recommendations on systemic reform. Among its key proposals related to prosecution was the recommendation that Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors be appointed through competitive examination – moving away from politically influenced appointments toward merit-based selection. The committee also proposed creating a Director of Prosecution in every state to provide structural oversight of the prosecution system.

While the Malimath Committee did not exclusively focus on gender representation in prosecution, its broader push for institutional accountability and transparent appointments created the framework within which gender-inclusive recruitment practices could take hold. The committee’s emphasis on victim-centred justice – it observed that the system had historically been weighed in favour of the accused – implicitly made the case for a prosecution cadre that is sensitive to the needs of victims, especially women and children.

The Justice Verma Committee (2013) 🔗

The Justice Verma Committee, constituted in the aftermath of the December 2012 gang rape in Delhi, went further. It recognised that the failure of the state to protect women was not merely a matter of inadequate law but of inadequate implementation – and that implementation is inseparable from the attitudes of legal professionals at every level, including prosecutors. The committee’s recommendations on gender-sensitive training, victim support during trials, and accountability of state actors in sexual violence cases created a direct mandate for gender-aware prosecution.

The Law Commission’s position on public prosecutors 🔗

The Law Commission of India’s 197th Report on the appointment of Public Prosecutors stressed that the office of a Public Prosecutor is a public one and that appointments must prioritise merit, integrity, and the ability to serve justice – not political convenience. The report criticised arbitrary, politically motivated appointments and called for proper screening through the Sessions Judge. Embedded in this call for quality is the implicit requirement that the prosecution cadre reflect the diversity of the society it serves – and a society where half the population is female, and where crimes against women constitute a substantial portion of criminal litigation, demands women in prosecution roles.

The structural barriers keeping women out of prosecution 🔗

Understanding underrepresentation requires looking at the pipeline. The Collegium system for higher judiciary appointments is opaque and has historically disadvantaged women, but even in prosecution – where appointments come from the Bar or from state cadres – structural barriers persist. Women lawyers often start with lower incomes, face harassment in courtrooms, lack mentors, and deal with the double burden of professional demands and family responsibilities in a system that offers minimal institutional support such as creches or flexible work options.

The absence of female professionals in sensitive cases can result in a lack of empathy and understanding, further discouraging victims from coming forward – a dynamic that plays out in police stations, but is equally true in prosecutorial offices. A victim who knows that a woman will be handling her case is more likely to cooperate fully with the prosecution, provide complete information, and maintain participation through the often gruelling trial process.

States that have introduced reservation in lower judicial services – such as Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Odisha – now have 40-50% women judicial officers at the entry level. A similar affirmative approach in the prosecution cadre – whether through dedicated recruitment drives, reservation in state prosecuting services, or mandatory assignment of women prosecutors to cases involving women and minors – could produce comparable results.

Gender sensitivity in practice: what difference does it make? 🔗

The connection between the gender of a prosecutor and the outcome of a case is not automatic, but the connection between gender sensitivity and case quality is well established. Public prosecutors are described in official government training materials as playing a vital role in protecting the interests of victims and creating sensitivity regarding the legal processes available to them. Prosecutors who have undergone gender-sensitivity training – or who bring that understanding from lived experience – are better equipped to handle the specific evidentiary and testimonial challenges that arise in crimes against women and children.

Consider POCSO trials: there is a severe shortage of trained public prosecutors in POCSO special courts, leading to long delays and low conviction rates. Into this gap steps the need not just for more prosecutors, but for prosecutors who understand the trauma responses of child victims, the dynamics of familial abuse, and the gender-loaded social pressures that cause witnesses to turn hostile. These are areas where a gender-sensitive prosecution approach – and the presence of women prosecutors – can make a material difference.

Research in comparative jurisdictions has shown that the inclusion of women in institutions that administer justice not only brings diverse perspectives to judgments but also reflects broader societal changes toward a more equitable legal system. The prosecutorial function is no different: a prosecution service that looks like the society it serves is one that is better equipped to serve it.

The way forward 🔗

Several practical measures have been proposed and partially implemented across different parts of India. Mandatory assignment of women prosecutors to cases involving sexual offences against women and children is one of the most direct interventions. Gender-sensitivity training for all prosecutors – male and female – is another, and several High Courts and the National Judicial Academy have begun incorporating this into training curricula. Transparent, examination-based appointment of prosecutors, as recommended by the Malimath Committee, reduces scope for political patronage and widens the pool of qualified women candidates.

At the systemic level, the case for women prosecutors connects directly to larger constitutional commitments. Empowering women in the legal system is not only a constitutional imperative but a step toward making justice truly representative, impartial, and accessible to all citizens. A prosecution service that is predominantly male cannot claim to represent the full interests of a diverse society – especially in cases where the victim of the crime is a woman or a child who must rely on that prosecutor to give voice to what happened to her.

What do you think? If women prosecutors are demonstrably better positioned to handle cases involving gender-based violence with sensitivity, should India legislatively mandate the assignment of women prosecutors to all POCSO and sexual offence trials – and would such a mandate risk reinforcing the idea that gender-sensitive justice is a “women’s issue” rather than a systemic responsibility for all prosecutors?

References

1. https://www.ejusticeindia.com/appointment-and-types-of-public-prosecutor/
2. https://www.insightsonindia.com/2024/10/30/editorial-analysis-under-representation-of-women-in-judiciary/
3. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/representation-of-women-in-judiciary
4. https://clpr.org.in/projects/equal-justice-advancing-womens-representation-in-the-higher-judiciary-in-india/
5. https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/42Q5v587/
6. https://blog.primelegal.in/analysis-of-sentencing-in-rape-cases-in-the-light-of-bnss-and-pocso-act-provisions/
7. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/malimath-committee/
8. https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/justice-verma-committee-report-summary
9. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151456189/
10. https://gender.study/gender-and-governance/women-criminal-justice-india-challenges-reforms/
11. https://bprd.nic.in/uploads/pdf/03%20Crime%20against%20women%20Investigation%20Techniques.pdf
12. https://officerspulse.com/2025/11/17/the-gender-neutrality-of-the-pocso-act/
13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11979718/
14. https://universalinstitutions.com/bridging-gender-gap-in-indian-judiciary/