Justice B. V. Nagarathna urged stronger solidarity among women lawyers, stating sisterhood is necessary to confront structural inequalities in the legal profession, while speaking at the launch of The Constitution is my Home by senior advocate Indira Jaising.
Supreme Court Judge Justice B. V. Nagarathna has urged greater solidarity among women lawyers, saying that sisterhood within the legal profession is essential to confront persistent structural inequalities.
Speaking at the launch event of Senior Advocate Indira Jaising’s book, “The Constitution is my Home”, on Thursday, Justice Nagarathna said the legal field has long been shaped by male dominance, supported by informal professional networks, mentorship arrangements, and institutional familiarity that she noted make it easier for men to enter and progress.
She observed that women who enter the profession often do so without comparable support systems, which she said makes long-term professional advancement harder even as women’s representation increases.
According to Justice Nagarathna, solidarity among women lawyers should not be treated as merely symbolic. She described it as a deliberate professional practice one that ensures personal achievements also lead to broader collective progress. She also called on senior members of the bar to actively mentor young advocates across gender lines to strengthen institutional inclusion and improve professional access.
The judge further said the challenges faced by women lawyers have changed over time. She noted that earlier generations had to fight simply for the right to enter the profession, while later cohorts had to win recognition in courts, establish credibility as senior advocates, and gradually build expertise in constitutional and commercial litigation. In her view, each generation has reduced some barriers, but structural difficulties continue to endure.
Justice Nagarathna also spoke about Jaising’s contribution to Indian jurisprudence. She said Jaising’s legal practice and public advocacy have influenced both legal doctrine and broader public debate. She pointed out that concerns such as workplace equality, sexual harassment, domestic violence, inheritance rights, and power imbalances have become central to constitutional and statutory interpretation, in part due to sustained litigation and advocacy in these areas.
The event included a conversation with journalist Sreenivasan Jain, during which Jaising discussed issues related to constitutionalism, gender justice, and the evolving role of institutions.
She said the Constitution is a personal and moral framework that shapes belonging and identity, and expressed concern about what she described as the gradual erosion of constitutional values without any formal amendment.
Jaising compared different phases of constitutional history. She said the Emergency involved the formal invocation of constitutional provisions, whereas today’s challenges often work through subtler institutional and administrative changes that are harder to spot and address within existing legal frameworks.
On judicial intervention, she expressed optimism that constitutional courts would ultimately take stronger corrective measures, adding that institutional power dynamics frequently influence how courts respond over time.
Regarding her participation in the Sabarimala litigation, Jaising declined to provide detailed comments because the matter is sub-judice. However, she reiterated her broader position on gender equality in religious and constitutional contexts.
She also said that while landmark rulings such as Vishakha strengthened protections against sexual harassment, judicial reasoning sometimes shows inconsistencies when engaging with women’s lived experiences particularly in cases involving violence and protection.
Jaising further remarked on what she described as a pattern in criminal justice responses to violence against women: that cases often receive greater institutional attention only after fatal outcomes, rather than during situations involving ongoing threats or harm at the survival stage.
She also discussed institutional accountability within the judiciary, referring to recent remarks by a Supreme Court bench expressing concern about inconsistencies in earlier bail judgments. She said this kind of internal reflection is important for maintaining doctrinal coherence.
In her concluding remarks, Jaising emphasised the importance of a strong and independent bar as a counterbalance within the justice system. She argued that professional accountability and critical engagement from legal practitioners are necessary to protect institutional integrity.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE