Diverse treatment meted out within the structures of the criminal justice system on account of the sex of the individual in question, such as legal, sentencing, or in the verdict passed by a jury, are termed gender disparities in the criminal justice system. There are variations that fall under this consideration of gender disparities, largely due to stereotypes or biases that start from before an arrest is made and up to when one is sentenced.

Such differences are typically seen in the duration of term sentences, pre-trial detention rates, and the overall intensity of punishment given to individuals. Research shows that many women tend to be treated in a more favorable manner, mainly because of the beliefs that women have low tendencies for violence and pose low risk compared to men. Sociocultural norms may also predispose available females and males and render them more or less repressive, buoying their injustice depending on the nature of crime, the sex of the victim, and the existing notions about males and females as criminals.

When scrutinizing the inequalities facing men and women in the criminal justice system, the cases of India and Sweden are both intriguing and opposite. Contrary to Sweden's modern welfare state, which treats all human beings equally, makes justice systems remain rigid in dose gender expectations dominates the society. To illustrate, the Indian judicial system has even faced challenges in trying, for example, domestic violence cases due to ingrained cultural beliefs about women criminals, particularly in domestic or family violence cases.

This becomes especially salient with regard to the cases involving dowry laws whose attendant prejudices at times cloud the decisions made by the ruling. However, Sweden is frequently praised for its concerns on gender equality, with a robust legal framework that prohibits any forms of discrimination including within the criminal justice system. In relation to the above, work done in the correctional bias in law and policies in Sweden has not revolutionized the social systems, which have a tendency to permeate the ever-evolving rule of law.

There are reasons for focusing on the gender component within the comparison of India and Sweden. First, it helps to comprehend how the given cultural and societal factors affect the judicial decision making processes as well as the formulation of policies. For instance, the framing of women as vulnerable and in need of protection against violence in a country such as India, contrasts with how such women are viewed in Sweden, where equal gender standing is highly advocated.

Third, analyzing these differences contributes to the comprehension of the social institutions such as law, especially, legal mechanisms that have women as the focal point. For instance, Before discussing the new rankings and other relative indicators of gender equality and policies in the share of women judges in France predetermined and proved by other innumerable studies, it is evident that women in judging bodies influence gender differences in sentences' rates. These conclusions based on French evidence demonstrate that the ratio of female to male legal practitioners has the potential to affect the judicial process, an important aspect concerning both India and Sweden as they strive to develop a just society.

Further, cognizing the gender inequity of treatment in the judiciary goes beyond just the equality for women and respect for human rights in general in the criminal justice system. For example, differential sentencing may result in the belief that there are instances of injustice perpetrated by the court, which compromises its credibility. Gender discrimination may also put certain groups at risk, especially when women are treated more favorably or men are subjected to harsher penalties, which might create situations that contravene the ideals of fairness. Therefore, understanding the gender disparities existing in the case of India and Sweden, helps in understanding the effect of the values of the society, the composition of the judiciary and the legislative changes on the gendered experiences of the criminal justice system in every other part of the world.

Background and Theoretical Framework

Many researchers have contributed to the existent knowledge on crime and criminal justice from a gender perspective. Crime management for example arrests, prosecution, sentencing and the length of imprisonment and so many others tend to be experienced differently by men and women. Studies show that women are perhaps more often let off the hook than men largely owing to the belief that women are naturally drawn towards less criminal behavior or they can be corrected.

Gender discrimination is apparent in every culture and justice system when it comes to the treatment of women who break the law. Women tend to be sentenced for a shorter period of time if at all convicted of crimes; they are also arrested less often for the same types of offenses and imprisoned less often. Such differences have been explained through the lens of social role theories particularly in those regions where it is believed that women are nurturers and more so do not engage in violent crimes. Concepts like the 'chivalry hypothesis' and 'paternalism' have been notably advanced to understand the patterns.

For example, the "chivalry hypothesis" explains how systems of justice that are dominated by men tend to deal with women brought to justice with a uterine perception instead of a punitive one; that is women are perceived as requiring support and protection instead of punishment. It indicates that some elements within the justice department may apply a double standard in pursuit of justice, this double standard being that women cannot be held fully accountable for criminal activities.

The paternalism theory adds to this narrative by pointing out that such relationships in the justice system also carry over to the general society. Here, women are seen as a group that merits the supervision and care of men. In this respect, this idea that women criminals should not be treated too harshly is a reflection of how society values women particularly those who are mothers or caregivers and so do not deserve much punishment for such crimes.

Studies in the real world validate these allegations explaining in detail how courts tend to give lesser sentences to women than men even in serious offenses. In this regard, a 2017 study by Philippe focused on France and analyzed more than 400,000 cases in total and showed the persistence of the gender gap where women, regardless of the type of committed crimes and their criminal history, were sentenced lighter and punished less severely than men. In addition, Philippe`s research also found evidence of the impact of the gender of the judges on the sentencing outcomes; for example, female judges were connected with a lesser gender gap suggesting that there are some stereotypes and the composition of the benches influences the sentences given.

These perspectives, as gathered from the French context, inform the examination of related issues in India and Sweden. Indian women's and men's portrayals in the Criminal Justice System are governed by the cultural perceptions existent in the society and sadly, such cultures tend to persist in attributing characteristics of women as peaceable, caring and unlikely to commit crimes. Such perceptions can cause considerable compassion for women involved in committing a crime particularly in instances where the relations lie but this compassion is not however ascribed to all other types of crime.

Especially in cases such as these, women being tied to the traditional or stereotypical gender roles imposed upon them by society, are oftentimes looked down upon when charged for such offenses. In this context, there are also chivalry and paternalism concepts, as the system of law seems to support the moral codex in which women need to be cared for and facilitated for their primary role as housekeepers.

On the other hand, who would have thought that Sweden, the bastion of progressive gender norms and equality, would criminate any obvious gender difference enshrined in the laws? Of late, however, a few studies have suggested that some subtle stereotypes are still present and that women may sometimes receive less strict punishment if compared to men, albeit not to the same extent as under more conservative countries.

This indicates that legal reforms aimed at eliminating injustice in its various forms may work within a society but not completely eradicate the pervasive negative attitudes towards those forms. From time to time, as was the case in France, it has been reported that more women judges have contributed towards lesser gender skewed trends in sentencing, therefore emphasizing that it is necessary to have a more gender balanced judiciary in order to curb such issues. Looking at all these in different parts of the world the social structure and the gender composition of the judiciary explains more how the gender in the criminal justice system is biased.

Gender Disparities in the Indian Criminal Justice System

The Indian criminal justice system is influenced by various cultures and societal values and shows a definite bias in gender at various levels including crime perpetrated, arrests made, convictions achieved, and sentences passed. Such discrepancies usually correspond to existing societal paradigms and issues related to the fairness of justice are discernible. This part of the essay focuses on presenting gender related patterns in the administration of justice in India presenting the existing legislation, the recent changes and the difference in the sentencing of the offenders as compared to France. 

Gender and Crime in India: Laws, Arrest, and Conviction Rates

Many important legal statutes ie. Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and many other Acts dealing with gender provide structure to the criminal justice system of the country. The majority of the sections in the IPC are neutral in gender implications, but there are certain Acts that focus on gender related crimes, more so, against women. Some of these include domestic violence (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005), sexual harassment (IPC Section 354A) and dowry related abuses (Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Section 498A of the IPC). Most of these laws are actually meant to combat violence and exploitation of women. Nonetheless, such a protective approach, in some cases, imposes rules that aim at differential treatment that upholds gender stereotypes in the courtroom.

National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics indicate that there are gender differentials in both arrest and conviction rates across the different types of crimes. In 2021, the number of men that were arrested suffered an overwhelming majority being roughly 94% of all recorded crime. This trend in gender disparity is in tandem with the societal perception that men are more inclined towards breaking the law more so in violent and property crimes. On the other hand, women constitute a lower percentage of offenders often arrested for economic and property offenses as tend to make less arrests with regards to violent offenses. Taking an example of the crime register under section 498A cruelty by husband or relatives 10% arrests made were those of female's this is mostly because the in laws were accused of domestic violence.

The prison sentences imposed upon male offenders tend to be longer than for females, as a greater proportion of male offenders serve custodial sentences. A study conducted in 2019 on the sentencing patterns in India revealed women defendants to be typically given shorter prison sentences or alternative sentencing options, like probation in the case of less severe crimes. This can be interpreted as an element of undue softness based on the societal stereotypes that women cannot be as dangerous as men or pose a serious threat to society. These results are in line with studies in other countries, for example in France, where women were found to be serving shorter jail terms than men for committing crimes of the same degree.

Judicial Reforms and Female Representation in India

The wide acceptance of this belief by the Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, reinforces the need for more gender representation in the judiciary for a better justice system. Justice Indira Banerjee, who sits on the Supreme Court as one of the few women Judges, pointed out how gender representation may help shape the understanding of the Judges, bringing down the prejudice in cases tried against women accused. Like in the higher judiciary, appointments of female judges also increased gradually in lower courts as the state judicial services took steps to bring about equality in the recruitment of female judges.

In addition, the apex court has made endeavors towards enhancing gender equity in the administration of justice through the courts. Guidelines for gender sensitivity training of judges, which include confronting gender-based attitudes and fairness in the treatment of women and women-related cases were published by the court in 2019. These reforms are consistent with the results based on the French judiciary where a rise in the number of women judges in the courts has helped to reduce the disparity in sentences passed on men and women. Similar to the French case, women judges helped to reduce the sentencing gap between men and women, pointing out that the presence of a gender-balanced judiciary helps to reduce gender bias in the justice system.

Analysis of Sentencing Patterns: Evidence of Gender Bias?

In spite of the fact that there is little expansive and detailed sentencing data for India, these studies and the data from the NCRB provide some gender related trends in the use of the law. Disproportionate sentencing practices in India towards women criminals are also consistent with France and other countries where women enjoy similar treatment. In India, women who have been adjudged guilty of a crime will most likely attract less or non- custodial sentences especially in non-serious offenses- 'instead of imprisonment, they are given probation, fines or similar sentences'.

This scenario is in accordance with the 'chivalry hypothesis' which proposes that female offenders receive more leniency as a result of protective or paternalistic views that do Gender discrimination in sentencing: the Indian scenario. As reported by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in the year 2022, female offenders in India were less likely to be sentenced to incarceration than their male counterparts even when they were found guilty of the same charges.

For instance, in instances of theft or white-collar crimes, there was a higher incidence of probation for women as compared to men, who received custodial sentences for such offenses. Similar orientations were evident in the gender discrimination that Phillips confirmed in research concerning the French judicial system, where it was noted that women received light sentences and more favorable respite conditions as compared to men.

Other forms of gender bias evolve during pretrial detention processes in India. Women are less likely than men to be detained prior to trial, and research reveals that the courts, in determining bail, place more consideration on women as caregivers than on their actions. The display of leniency in the female applicants with small children or who care for their children mostly, brings to the fore further social roles that play in judicial decision-making. In all this, it falls right in line with what was noticed within the comparative context of France, that saw judges exhibiting bias while handing down conviction to women by being parental. However, leniency toward women in sentencing is not applied uniformly to all crimes.

When Indian courts deal with violent crimes or with major economic offenses, then to them, it presents less of gender-based leniency. For instance, while those with graver crimes like murder or organized economic fraud are more likely to garner sentences comparable to those given to men, giving the impression that leniency in the application of justice would most probably apply only to the most minor infractions. Selective leniency has another similar pattern within the case of countries like Sweden wherein leniency appears to be more feasible for minor offenses than graver ones.

Societal and Cultural Factors Influencing Gender Biases in Sentencing

The cultural predilection and social pressure that have been imposed on women in Indian society to fulfill traditional caregiver roles all breed gender disparities in sentencing under the Indian criminal justice system. This is because the roles culturally assigned and traditionally performed by women also have a deep impact on and transform judicial attitudes toward female offenders.

Cultural stereotypes portraying women as less culpable and/or more reformable than men may contribute to judges, in particular those of the older generation, meting out lighter sentences and giving preferential treatment in noncustodial measures. This can be especially true in family or home-related crimes, for which defendants are seen to be acting under compulsion or within a familial duty.

The Indian judiciary has greatly played a role in expanding the scope of rights for prisoners and has been applauded for building better protections for women against violence and discrimination. A few of the cases that the Supreme Court dealt with on the issue of the sentencing of female offenders follow:

• Meera v. State by The Inspector of Police Thiruvottiyur Police Station Chennai (2022) 1 S.C.R. 223
  The trial court sentenced the female accused to one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC. The incident occurred in 2006, and nearly a decade had elapsed since the High Court's decision on appeal. The mother-in-law was found guilty of cruelty towards her daughter-in-law. Given her advanced age (around 80 years), the sentence was reduced to three months.
   
• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi (2017) 2 S.C.R. 112
  Nirmala Devi and another accused committed theft by intoxicating the victim. The trial court gave her a lighter sentence due to her gender and family responsibilities, but the High Court overturned this. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that gender alone is not a sufficient mitigating factor in sentencing.
   
• Smt Shamim v. State (GNCT of Delhi) (2018) 11 SCR 677
  Convicted under Sections 302/307 and 34 IPC, Shamim was sentenced to life imprisonment based on circumstantial evidence. Although initially acquitted, the High Court later convicted her. The Supreme Court upheld the sentence but reversed remission due to lack of specific grounds.
   
• Shabnam v. State of UP (2015) 9 SCR 943
  Shabnam and her boyfriend killed seven family members and a baby due to opposition to their relationship. Despite her age (21) and pregnancy, the court did not consider these as mitigating factors. Due to the brutality and premeditated nature of the crime, the death sentence was upheld.
   
• Ashabai & Anr v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 1 SCR 115
  In a dowry death case involving bride burning, the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law were sentenced to life imprisonment. The victim was harassed for being childless and set ablaze. The mother-in-law died during appeal, but the sisters-in-law's sentences were upheld to act as a deterrent.
   
• Jasvir Kaur v. State of Punjab [2012] 9 SCR 1057
  The husband and wife were convicted of cheating. Initially given equal sentences, the wife's sentence was reduced considering her minor role and gender. The court emphasized the complexity of sentencing decisions.
   
• Smt. Paniben vs State Of Gujarat [1992] 2 SCR 197
  In a dowry-related murder case, the Supreme Court refused leniency, stating that sympathy would weaken justice. The court criticized female perpetrators in dowry crimes, advocating for strict punishment to uphold public faith in the law.
   
• Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1974] 3 SCR 329
  Justice Krishna Iyer commuted the death sentence of a young female prisoner to life imprisonment, considering her emotional trauma, social pressures, and prolonged time on death row, applying the principle of humane justice.

Analysis of Judicial Trends
Women, incarcerated in India, also are composed of many who perpetrated heinous crimes like murder due to dowry-related deaths. The cases above indicate a trend in judicial jurisprudence and especially in women committing crimes of domestic violence. Section 498A of the IPC deals with "Husband and Relatives Causing Cruelty to Women," but law often ignores the pernicious patriarchal backdrop.

While men most often wield the most power within families, when cases appear in court, women of the sort one thinks of as a mother-in-law tend to become the focus of the legal process because they are easier to demonize based on cultural expectations. This tends to hide male perpetrators' roles and drive home other gender biases in the criminal justice system.

Research and surveys have clearly shown that domestic violence continues to occur in great proportions, among rural women and poorer women in particular. Strict laws notwithstanding, societal tendencies remain bent on downplaying or ignoring such abuse in daily settings. This dynamic explains why women's experiences remain marginalized and why efforts to achieve actual gender justice in sentencing are complicated.

Impact of Judicial Representation on Gender Disparities
Evidence suggests that it can influence judicial outcomes at the level of judges and prosecutors, adding up to the degree of gender disparity in sentencing and the broader judicial treatment of defendants. The presence of female judges and prosecutors can reduce gender biases through encouraging varied perspectives and challenging stereotypes often responsible for the biases involved in sentencing decisions. This section examines how the judicial composition impacts gender gaps by drawing on evidence from France, which shows that an increased female proportion is associated with decreased sentencing disparities, and then asks for a similar pattern in India and Sweden.

Effects of Judicial Composition on Sentencing Outcomes
A number of cross-country studies illustrate how judge and prosecutor gender could influence the severity of the sentence imposed with typically a considerable reduction in gender inequality when women constitute a sizeable proportion of the judiciary. From a role congruity theory perspective, "it could be assumed that women, differently situated by their lives and social experiences, will apply different meanings and sensitivity in judicial decision-making."

There has been a lot of research on gender bias, and that research indicates that female judges are less likely to foster stereotypes about women being innately less culpable or deserving of leniency. This influence has been demonstrated in the United States, the UK, and, as was discussed above, France, in which the statistical presence of women judges correlates with narrower gender sentencing gaps.

According to a 2017 study on the French judiciary, a greater proportion of women judges was also related to a lower gap in sentencing outcomes for gender-specific defendants. The less pronounced gap in the proportion of sentences had when the judge was a female, and it indicated that equal treatment regardless of gender. This may be because female judges are somewhat more likely to challenge gendered assumptions and approach matters from a vantage less influenced by established stereotypes.

The authors established that, at the aggregate level, sentencing gaps between males and females persisted, yet female judges were less likely to cite paternalistic leniency on the basis of assumptions about women's social roles or innate characteristics.

Judicial Representation and Gender Disparities in India
The Indian judiciary has traditionally been a male bastion, reflecting broad societal as well as institutional gender biases. The country, after all, made commitments to gender equality at home in its Constitution and reaffirmed those commitments through various legal and policy reforms. Yet the march towards parity in the judiciary has been slow and uneven. This is the representation of women at higher tiers in the judiciary, which is still really low, and therefore becomes the imbalance given the gender character that reflects in the judicial outcome and reduces the diversity of perspectives that ensure fairness for the legal process.

Representation of women judges in India has seen a change over the years to be little positive, especially in the lower judiciary. Estimates show women now represent nearly 13% of judges at the district level. Notwithstanding, this positive trend is not leveled well across the higher courts. In India's Supreme Court, women make up only about 3 percent, while in the High Courts women account for less than 4 percent of total strength.

In a number of states, including Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the districts have minimal representation or no female judges at the High Court level, so basically reflecting yawning regional disparities. The plight of women in the Indian judiciary is multifaceted, of which structural and cultural factors may be deep-rooted in these issues. Many obstacles stand between women and their rightful place on the bench of the Indian judiciary.

Patriarchal mindset, deep-rooted in the legal fraternity, radiates like a heavy fog across the legal fraternity. Traditionally, the Indian judiciary had been a male bastion and an institution shaped by tradition long since denying them places in leadership positions. Exclusion is not merely a matter of numbers but also one of the scarce opportunities open to women legal professionals seeking greater publicity and experience, particularly in constitutional law and criminal law-the two practice areas most likely to lead to judicial appointments. Hence, the pipeline of qualified women for these higher judicial appointments remains very limited​. Structural barriers within the judiciary are significant in perpetuating gender disparities.

In India, the opaque process of judicial appointments- especially to the High Courts and the Supreme Court heavily relies on the recommendations of senior judges and the executive. This process, which often remains sensitive to informal networks and connections within the legal community, will tend to favor male candidates, and women are excluded from the process. There have been widespread criticisms of the lack of gender sensitivity in the selection process by legal scholars and women's rights advocates, who advocate affirmative action measures to increase women's participation at higher judicial positions.

Besides, judicial work settings are not always women-friendly. For example, while most courts in India will not be properly equipped for female employees, such as comfortable resting areas and other family-friendly facilities, for instance crèches, the precarious nature of judicial work plus broader societal pressures relating to the expectation of women's work in family life constitutes an additional burdensome challenge facing female judges.

These challenges are mainly felt in the rural sectors where lack of structures may desist women from taking or continuing careers in judicial. The lack of gender diversity within the judiciary has a broader effect on decision-making within the legal sector. Empirical studies indicate that the incidence of females within the judiciary bench may have the effect of changing the outcomes of cases within these broad categories and specifically on matters relating to gender-based violence and law relating to domestic affairs.

Women judges are more sensitive to the issues of domestic abuse and sexual harassment and, therefore, give a coloured and sympathetic interpretation of law. This is a much needed perspective for a country like India, where gender-based violence is still a massive issue. The under representation of women in the judiciary not only reduces professional opportunities for women but adversely affects the delivery of quality justice as well, especially for marginalized groups.

Judicial Representation and Gender Disparities in Sweden
Sweden is, globally, known to think way ahead when it comes to gender equality. At the same time, gender remains unevenly distributed in its judiciary to this day, reflecting broader structural inequalities that have yet to be challenged. Over the last few years, Sweden has endeavored to make its legal institutions look more gender-balanced than before. According to the latest data, women now make up almost half of the judiciary-the improvement from past decades, where legal professions were dominantly male-dominated.

Specifically, the gender initiative policy reflects Sweden's greater policy intentions in promoting overall gender equality in society in general; this indirectly benefits mainly from this country's commitment to embracing European Union gender mainstreaming and the broader Scandinavian model of gender equality. Still, beneath such seemingly good overall representation patterns in balance, other disparity areas are found in the higher judicial ranks.

Actually, the percentage of female justices among the members of the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) and Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) in Sweden is still much lower as compared to the high courts. The not so large number of women in these top judicial roles indicates a "glass ceiling" effect: gender and traditional views on how to be a good leader do influence the choice of who to select. Studies have indicated that the problem of implicit bias cuts across women, based on the sense of women themselves that they are not knowledgeable enough at work, particularly in legal interpretation and the responsibility of dispensing justice at the highest level. Sweden's judiciary is a civil law system that spawns from the Romano-Germanic tradition of law.

While the formal legal order is expected to be neutral and objective, the less visible process of systemic bias persists. An analysis indicates discretionary practice through informal networks and traditional routes of judicial recruitment favor men, particularly those who have connections with the legal and political elite. Internal promotion and lifetime tenure often ensure that the judiciary is not a lively mixture of perspectives, particularly among senior judges​ Societal perceptions of gender and, more broadly, gender roles also feature in judicial careers.

Women judges commonly cite the way that gender expectations affect their careers. For example, female judges always have the feeling of too much highlighting in judgments related to gender-based violence or family law questions with being stereotypically softer or skewed toward women. Such stereotyping leaves a dent into their professional integrity and prevents them from ascending higher judicature roles.

Gender imbalances also exist within the judiciary both in terms of representation and decision-making. Empirical studies show that male-dominated panels portray gender bias in judgments mostly by those cases relating to sexual violence or domestic abuse. Presence of women in a panel has been seen to influence the results toward gender-sensitive judgments. This in a way proves that judicial panels should be composed of diversities in order to weigh off the biases resulting due to gender and deliver more valid legal procedures. Besides, intersectionality is an important concept for understanding the above-mentioned disparities.

Women belonging to ethnic minorities in Sweden suffer from compounded discrimination, being both women and members of minority groups. Such intersectional discrimination would likely impact chances for their appointment and the kinds of cases they are afforded. It would also impact their general career advancement into the judiciary.

Similarities and Differences in Judicial Representation Impacts Across Contexts
If an argument were to be made about the number of female judicial representations in India and Sweden, it would always be better to have a recognition of a deeper jurisprudence framework and sociopolitical influences that develop gender diversity in the two contexts. An increase in the number of female representatives has been argued to bring substantive changes beyond mere numerical parity in both countries for quality judicial reasoning and the effectiveness of the legal system.

However, impacts are not uniform but influenced by legacies of historical pasts, structural features of the judiciary, and evolving gender norms in each society. In Sweden, the integration of women into the judiciary reflects broader principles of gender egalitarianism that are then grafted on to the Scandinavian welfare state model. This model is based upon a legal culture which believes in, and places emphasis on, social justice and equity with proactive steps of gender mainstreaming within all public institutions, including the judiciary.

Here, India's approach is influenced by a colonial legal history combined with deep societal patriarchal structures that have been around for centuries to delay the pace of women's advancement within the legal profession. Whereas India's Constitution guarantees gender equality and judiciary has at times held the banner of progressive interpretation on gender rights, the absence of structural mechanisms as exists in Sweden, such as gender quotas or affirmative action in judicial appointments, has caused delayed progress. In short, it has been jarring - episodic and at times even patchy, with sharper impacts at lower judicial levels and weaker at the higher echelons of the judiciary owing to the open-ended collegium system and the lack of gender-responsive, transparent criteria for judicial appointments.

Finally, in both contexts, this push for gender diversity in the judiciary is basically in alignment with broader international human rights commitments, such as those in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). As a result, both states have been influenced by international norms and values that promote gender equality; women's role in courts has been introduced as an element of justice principle necessary not only for justice but also for the institution's integrity. Their repeated assertions on gender equality equally reflect a broader social campaign for gender balance, as expressed in both countries by women rights organizations and legislative improvement programs. The legal structures in Sweden are characterized by a transparent and merit-based process of appointment which, in itself has actively facilitated the inclusion of women.

Part of the broader Swedish commitment to gender equality in social policies and political structures is a gender representation in the judiciary. Sweden has nearly achieved parity in the judiciary, wherein almost 50% of judges at all levels in the court system are women. This represents the wider Scandinavian model of gender equality, which emphasizes the role of institutional mechanisms in attaining balanced representation. In contrast, the Indian procedure for judicial appointments, particularly at higher courts, is opaque and heavily influenced by patriarchal norms. The collegium system, whereby appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts are made, does not have explicit criteria that promote gender diversity.

While women's participation in lower courts has appreciably increased, similar developments are less apparent at higher levels of the judiciary, in which women make up an extremely miniscule number of judges. The absence of openness and affirmative action measures has further augmented these enduring gender imbalances, particularly at the top levels of the judiciary. The presence of gender diversity has, in Sweden, affected the delegation of more women as well as the content of judicial decisions.

Research studies have shown that with more women on the bench, there would be bold rulings concerning issues such as gender discrimination, reproductive rights, and domestic violence. The commitment of the Swedish judiciary towards gender equality has created a legal environment where gender-sensitive views better contextualize judicial reasoning and, by extension, influence the overall culture of the legal system. In contrast, in India, women on the higher judicial rungs still have limited representation and, therefore, have had difficulty integrating gender-sensitive perspectives into landmark legal decisions.

While women judges at the lower court levels have been appreciated across many quarters in handling gender-based violence cases with empathies, their submissions are remarkably hardly considered by the high judiciary whose decision-makers are male. This disparity is reflected in several high-profile cases where judgments have been criticized for their insensitivity towards gender issues, thereby necessitating greater diversity in the decision-making processes of the Indian judiciary​. The comparison between India and Sweden highlights both shared aspirations and divergent realities in the pursuit of gender equality in the judiciary.

Conclusion
This comparative study of gender disparities in India, Sweden, and France criminal justice systems presents much evidence that social values, the nature of the judiciary, and policies all affect outcomes at sentencing. In Sweden, with a very high rating for gender equality and good parity of women on the bench, there is less disparity by gender across the board, especially on serious offenses. In Sweden, the women litigants are relatively treated more equitably than in India, where traditional gender roles seem to continue influencing the law in a way that women are given less severe punishments for most non-violent or family-related crimes. France's experience amply proves that with more females within the judiciary, gender gap actually decreases, even in a more traditional gender-imbued system.

Implications of these results put a buttress on the importance of policy reform in a global perspective so as to tone down gender biases within criminal justice systems. For example, in India, greater female representation in courts may have a potential impact on treatment outcomes of male and female defendants. Policy can be steered toward introducing orientation programs with a tone of gender sensitivity along with greater diversity in judicial appointments at higher levels. Such a range of reforms could slowly alter the minds of judicial members and help them be more neutral in the way they issue judgments, which in turn can be fairer and represent equality.

Of significance in the study is the adoption of a multidimensional approach to counter imbalance in gender roles in criminal justice. The two genders must be involved in each of the scopes of work. Both a judge and a prosecutor can, for example, belong to the same gender. Other demographic characteristics, including age, socioeconomic, and educational levels, will also be significant in such analyses. Therefore, future research may focus on these variables to gain further insight into their relationships with gender in judicial decision-making. For instance, research into whether the age or socioeconomic status of judges influences sentencing practices might point toward other sources of bias determining judicial outlooks. So if a country like India is as culturally diverse as possible, an analysis of regional variation and localized impacts on the practice of judiciaries could help build further depth about gender differences in 'equal treatment'.

Next, studies on the implicit biases involved in judicial decision-making remain worthwhile. More information about such psychological studies on implicit bias training for the judiciary could help understand how unconscious biases of judges influenced the sentencing outcome and whether interventions could mitigate such effects. With growing awareness of discrepancies in criminal justice across genders, cross-cultural research and international collaboration may help bring about the development of best practices and standardized approaches to promoting fairness and equity within judicial systems.

Therefore, the current study affirms how gender disparities in criminal justice are inextricably linked with norms within the society, composition in the judiciary, and policy frameworks. In the broadest sense, the more diversity is fostered within the judiciary, the easier it is to work toward an equitable criminal justice system; more importantly, policies that address gender biases within judiciaries would materialize. This can be through balanced representation, training, or even research-driven reforms, all that aim at ensuring that biases in sentencing are addressed, which would then become a point of fairness and impartiality central to judicial integrity.