Distressing that conversations on gender discrimination from 30-40 years ago are still relevant: Chief Justice Gita Mittal

A virtual discussion on ‘Women, Law, and the Legal Profession’ saw Jammu and Kashmir High Court Chief Justice Gita Mittal reflect yesterday on how it was a matter of grave concern that age-old conversations on gender discrimination were relevant even today..The matter of grave concern for me that conversations which I heard 30 years ago or 40 years ago when I joined the legal profession in 1981 are still relevant and seriously in issue even today.Gita Mittal, Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court.Chief Justice Mittal, Geeta Rameseshan, an Advocate practising in the Madras High Court, and Professor Jhuma Sen of the Jindal Global Law School were the speakers in a special plenary session organised as part of Jindal Global Law School’s Virtual Global Conference on Legal Education. .All three speakers addressed, in some way, the hurdles that lay in the way of a woman’s rise to the heights of the legal profession. Chief Justice Mittal also focussed on how the legal profession was unresponsive to the specific needs of women, while Advocate Rameseshan attempted to theorise why this was so. .Professor Jhuma Sen spoke on how early Indian women lawyers navigated hostile spaces and created milestones for themselves, which was remarkable for the times they lived in..On ‘Glass Ceilings’ and the need for gender diversity.Chief Justice Gita Mittal’s primarily centred her address around the concept of the ‘glass ceiling’, a term used to describe the invisible barriers that prevent women from reaching heights in their profession. The glass ceiling subjects women to discrimination all over the world, she remarked..Speaking in the context of the legal profession, she noted that though the numbers of men and women graduating a law course were equal, men outnumbered women when it came to top positions..On a question asked about disparities in appointments to the higher judiciary, she opined that when ‘discretion’ is exercised in appointments and promotions, it skews the number of women appointees..“It’s only when you get the option of using discretion is where the disparity is coming in ... women are not being put in positions where they would be part of the choice-making group. So more and more women are being left out..”, Chief Justice Mittal said..The Chief Justice cited instances of how women are often expected to juggle their professional and family lives, even when they did rise to the top positions in the profession. Women were often encouraged to take on roles perceived as "safer", take up practice in laws relating to family and custody issues..Touching upon law offices, she remarked that many offices treat maternity benefits to women as a waste of the firm’s resources. There was a perception that women could not work late hours. Workplaces also tend to allot less demanding work or work considered ‘safe’ to women, she observed..She observed that even roster allotment and the distribution of administrative functions to judges in the higher judiciary are gendered. Women judges were often allocated subjects like family and matrimonial disputes, while male judges handled complex commercial disputes, she said..She recounted how many women judges are tasked with handling administrative departments such as livery and housekeeping in the Courts, while the male judges were allotted with the work of maintaining and developing the Court’s technology infrastructure..Quoting the ‘abysmal’ figures that showed how poorly women were represented in the top rungs of the legal profession, she emphatically called for the dismantling of institutional and perception biases that operated as glass ceilings to women in the legal profession..Concluding her remarks, Chief Justice Mittal underscored the necessity for gender diversity in Courts, Law Offices, and firms. She stressed upon the importance of creating work environments that allowed for such diversity..implicit gender bias swings from a formal-protectionist model when it comes to women practising law.Advocate Geeta Rameseshan discussed how formal and protective notions of equality often operated against women being able to reach the top of the ‘pyramid’ in the legal profession..On the one hand, the formal notion of equality subjected women to the same rules of the workplace that applied to men. Formal equality expected women to take up work, ‘like a man’, operate in the same working hours, and conditions of work, she explained..Protectionism, on the other hand, tried to shield women from situations considered ‘unsafe’ or unsuited to women, irrespective of whether they could face these situations..Both formal and protective notions together worked against women rising to heights, she said..“…The implicit gender bias swings from a formal-protectionist model when it comes to women practising in a Court of law…”Advocate Geeta Rameseshan.What was needed was substantive equality, a concept that is only now gaining acceptance was discussed by Justice DY Chandrachud in the Sabarimala Judgment, she stated..As she concluded her address, she expressed happiness that female lawyers seemed to be more ‘in demand’ these days as compared to young male associates, because they are perceived as more competent. .Without diving into the correctness of this notion, she encouraged women to leverage the opportunities now opening up and surround themselves with people who supported them in the decisions they were taking..On the pioneering women lawyers who navigated the hostile gentlemen’s club that was the legal profession.Professor Jhuma Sen narrated the stories of women who made their mark on the legal profession and the circumstances that led up to their achievements, which was remarkable for the times they lived in..Starting from the question of why women would be interested in joining the legal profession, she said that several factors operated to draw them into the field. .The emergence of the modern professions, the suffrage movement, the exposure women obtained to a life outside the home through the Indian Freedom Struggle and the rise of women litigants such as pardanashin women all worked towards drawing women into the masculinist legal profession..She drew from the lives of Cornelia Sorabjee, Regina Guha and Sudhanshubala Hazra, who were among the women who breached the ‘gentlemen’s club’ of the legal profession and shattered the stereotypes that prevailed..Stating that 2023 would mark the 100th year from the enactment of the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act, she pitched the prospect of a project to commemorate the lives of pioneering women lawyers..The three women speakers agreed that much more had to be done to dismantle institutional gender biases..When responding to a question on how mindsets could be changed, Chief Justice Gittal observed on a happier note that law schools such as Jindal Global Law School were churning out young men who recognised that their women colleagues and friends were as competent as they were.