Thread by @barandbench

Virtual discussion on Women, Law and the Legal Profession to be held shortly as part of Jindal’s Global Virtual Conference.

Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Gita Mittal to render keynote address.

@JindalGLS
@JindalGlobalUNI

Welcome address by Prof (Dr) C Raj Kumar, Vice-Chancellor, JGU

Presidential Address by Geeta Ramaseshan, Advocate, Madras High Court

Special Address by Pallavi Shroff, Managing Partner, Shadul Amarchand Mangaldas.

The event can be viewed live here:

Session begins. Prof (Dr) C Raj Kumar welcomes the gathering.

Prof Kumar touches upon the low representation of women among judges.

Prof Kumar: We can discuss data, but the real question as we celebrate #ConstitutionDay is as to what extent we can shape the future of Indian democracy and legal profession by recognising the challenge of institutionalised discrimination, and to what extent the women contest it.

Chief Justice Gita Mittal commences her address: Namaskar is a greeting which I think the world over is being followed world over, given the pandemic.

I wish all of you good health, greetings on this special day celebrated as #ConstitutionDay in India.

Mittal: It is a matter of grave concern for me that conversations which I heard 30-40 years ago when I joined the legal profession in 1981 are still relevant and seriously in issue even today.

Mittal says that the topic of the session continues to be relevant even today while thanking the Jindal Global Law School for choosing the topic.

Mittal: The glass ceiling is one of the most compelling metaphors for analysing inequalities between men and women in the workplace. It applies to women as a group kept from advancing higher because of their gender.

Mittal: The eminent jurist, Lord Coke, in England, about 350 years ago openly stated that "Women are generally unfit for the duties of the legal profession."

Mittal: In the Indian context, in 1916, a special bench of the Calcutta HC In Re: Regina Guha refused the enrolment of Ms Regina Guha as a pleader.

Mittal: It was observed that the legislative intent while passing the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879 was - "it would be repugnant to the idea of decorum to permit women to join the rough and tumble of the forensic arena"

Mittal: It was only in 1921, that Allahabad High Court ignored the Calcutta High Court decision and Cornelia Sorabji was admitted as a vakeel on August 24, 1921.

Mittal: Finally it was on February 28, 1923, that the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act was passed, removing all doubts about the eligibility of women to be enrolled and practice as legal practitioners.

Mittal: In 1999, only 10% of the total lawyers admitted to the Bar were females. In recent times, India's top law firms are said to have only 30% women partners - a 3rd of these firms having gender ration below 20%

Mittal: In over 5 decades, the position of the designation of senior advocates in the Supreme Court is also deplorable.

Mittal recalls that in 1977, Leila Seth became the first woman designated as a senior advocate.

Mittal: The next designation of a woman advocate as senior counsel happened only in 2007 when Justice Indu Malhotra became only the second woman so desginated.

Mittal refers to surveys which informed that in corporate offices, women lawyers reported being given unchallenging work, lower professional fees, denied benefits and promotions.

74% of women lawyers reported that their employers made little effort to promote or mentor them.

Mittal: Women remain severely underrepresented in the legal profession. More woman are entering the legal profession everyday, but their upward mobility is hampered due to systemic discrimination.

Mittal on women's abysmal representation in the judiciary.

Mittal: Out of 673 sitting judges of HCs, only 73 are women. I happen to be the only woman Chief Justice out of 25 High Courts in India. Only 8 women have ever been appointed as Supreme Court Judges.

Mittal observes that availing maternity leave has adversely affected women who are lawyers and in the judiciary.

Mittal: It is not uncommon for women to be questioned on their marital status, plans of having children at job interviews - questions not asked of men.

"Doesn't she know that there is no maternity leave for a lawyer in the profession?" Mittal recalls a judge as having commented once when a woman lawyer sent a colleague to seek a short adjournment.

Working late and travelling late (leaving women less time to stay back in office), talking to policemen - are all considered unsafe for women, Mittal notes.

Mittal: Women are also kept outside fields of law such as criminal law due to stereotypes about the practice.

Mittal: Preconceptions surrounding women's roles and abilities, biases in recruitment, lack of access to informal networks of communications are all part and forms of discrimination faced by women.

Mittal: Gender-based discrimination is a lived reality for many women. It is no different in the legal profession

Mittal: Reporting on glass ceiling issues is completely inadequate, if at all.

Mittal: The importance of gender diversity cannot be overstated. It particularly significant in the legal profession where the presence of women ... (aids) in upholding the ideals of equality... impartiality of the legal system.

Mittal: Women professionals have to anticipate familial demands while juggling professional commitments.

Flexible timings, creches for mothers, fairly recognising the worth of women professionals, having uniform evaluation criteria- should be an integral part of every workspace

Mittal: Only then would discrimination stand removed, and gender equality achieved.

Mittal: To this end, I have mandated that childcare spaces and creches in court would stand inaugurated in Jammu and Kashmir (and various districts named).

Mittal: We in 2020, we are still talking about glass ceilings, deprivations as far as women are concerned.

Let us strive towards to a better tomorrow where equality is the norm.

Advocate Geeta Ramaseshan commences her address.

Ramaseshan speaks on formal v. substantial equality.

Ramaseshan: We are viewed only through the prism of formal model where you are equal, if you want to be in this profession you have to deal with it like a man - so don't expect maternity leave etc. is the common understanding

Ramaseshan: In the Madras High Court it required a lot of demands for a creche to be put in the High Court campus.

Ramaseshan recalled that when she joined the Bar there were many seniors who would not take women as juniors.

Now things are changed, many want a woman junior, she adds.

Ramaseshan: If you look at smaller towns, it is very hard for women to make a mark, to get an office, develop clientele, to be taken seriously.

Ramaseshan refers to how women were discouraged from pursuing criminal law and were encouraged to pursue family or civil law.

Ramaseshan: The implicit gender bias springs from a protectionist model.

Ramaseshan: One advantage is that this is an easier profession for women to come back, after a break.

Ramaseshan, referring to the legal profession as a pyramid: For women to reach midway, it is interesting and frustrating. But it has its own merits if you stay on and push yourself in more ways than one. You do need a great support system.

Ramaseshan: A large part of my criminal law practice was because of Legal Aid in Tamil Nadu. The secretary and others were very encouraging to women lawyers.

Ramaseshan, while urging women lawyers to push through: The sky would be the limit. Not the glass ceiling.

Ramaseshan concludes.

Professor Jhuma Sen begins her address.

Prof Sen refers to the 20th century period, which marked a number of women's rights movements.

Prof Sen: The freedom struggle had legitimised the women's involvement outside home and family and it provided a fertile ground for women to access the legal profession.

Prof Sen: This period also saw the proliferation of more women litigants.

Prof Sen on Cornelia Sorabji: She negotiated her way into the legal profession by arguing that Indian women litigants needed Indian women lawyers who were uniquely placed to provide professional guidance and comfort.

Prof Sen: The other two remarkable women were Regina Guha and Sudhanshubala Hazra. Their names have been lost in history.

Both challenged laws prohibiting women from practising law, Prof Sen recounts.

Prof Sen: 2023 marks the 100 years since the passage of the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act. It is perhaps time to reflect and curate the lives of these women in the legal profession. It may demonstrate the complex negotiations these early women lawyers did.

Prof Sen concludes.

Qn: Ultimately to achieve gender diversity, is the only hope to put a percentage based reservation (for women)?

Chief Justice Mittal: Of course not. I have strong views on merit. I only say there should be a fair evaluation, clearly laid down parameters for assessment.

Chief Justice Mittal notes that 50% of those joining the subordinate judiciary at the entry point are women.

Mittal: It is only when you get the option of using discretion comes in (for evaluation and promotion) that the disparity is coming in.

Mittal: Women are not being put in a position where they would be part of the choice-making group. More and more women are being left out. I've head Justice Brenda Hale say this all the time. There are several others.

Qn on allocation of work to women lawyers, the role of women lawyers in officers.

Ramaseshan notes that in bigger cities, now women lawyers are sought for, but such challenges were to women getting work maybe there in smaller towns.

Qn: What ought to be the University's responsibilities in shaping the future for a stronger role for women in law.

Prof Sen opines that one aspect is to make good students.

She adds that there is a need to diversify, referring to how women are sometimes not perceived as suited to certain types of law such as tax law. Students can be given this space, she says.

Referring to US SC Judge, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's comment that there will be enough women judges in the Supreme Court when all nine judges are women, Prof Kumar asks:

What is the future? How can we expect a change in mindset and reality?

CJ Mittal: I am sure you are churning out young men who think that their women colleagues and women students and friends are just as good as them. When we can create that kind of a mindset, and not looking at differences by the similarities, is when we will achieve that

CJ Mittal recounts an anecdote from Justice Ruma Pal:

In a case involving washing machines, her male counterpart turned to the lawyers and said, "my Learned sister will be knowing all about this, I don't."

Ruma Pal reacted and questioned the presumption, Mittal narrates:

She asked, "How do you know? What do I know about washing machines?"

Mittal observes that women judges are assigned particular rosters because of inherent discrimination: Now things are changing slowly. There are judges who are willing to give difficult IPR matters, company law matters to women judges.

Chief Justice Mittal adds that women judges also face discrimination in the allocation of other responsibilities

Mittal: You will be given protocol branch, housekeeping, laundry... while the male judges would get to do the computer, IT branch etc.

Mittal: Till we create a body of men who think that women are no different from them, and are able to look at equality as a real-time reality - is when you will have equality on the Bench.

Session has come to an end.