
A film launch and an all-woman panel discussion supported by the Society for Democratic Rights and the University of Cambridge, held on Friday, 25th October 2024, bookmarked a crucial moment in the history of the legal profession in India—the centenary of Indian women’s right to practice law.
Keynote Speaker: Hon’ble Ms. Justice (Retd.) Hima Kohli [Former Judge, Supreme Court of India]
Film Launch: Ms. Bhumika Billa [Researcher and Artist, University of Cambridge]
Panelists:
– Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija [Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India]
– Ms. Jayna Kothari [Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India]
– Ms. Sanchita Ain [Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India]
Moderator: Ms. Suhasini Haidar [Editor, The Hindu]
Justice Hima Kohli (former judge, Supreme Court of India) mapped the history of women’s right to practice law and acknowledged the legacies of trailblazing women lawyers in India and beyond.
This was followed by the launch of a new short film titled ‘(IN)VISIBLE’, produced by Ms. Bhumika Billa (Doctoral Candidate at the University of Cambridge). The film presented new evidence of epistemic injustice faced by women in their day-to-day professional lives through poetry, dance, music and colour, and can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAnm88Sozj8&ab_channel=CambridgeFestival
The panel discussion that followed was moderated by Ms. Suhasini Haidar (Diplomatic Editor, The Hindu) and discussed the past, present, and future of womaning in the Indian legal profession in light of issues raised by the film. Suhasini and Bhumika were joined on the panel by Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India), Ms. Jayna Kothari (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India), Ms. Sanchita Ain (Advocate-on-Record).
The key themes of discussion included the need for reservations for women in leadership positions in the legal system. Justice Kohli opened the discussion by disregarding the need for any quotas for women and reemphasizing the importance of merit-based appointments. Jayna agreed that merit should be the only thing that matters in the courtrooms but added that one carries their identity even outside. Bhumika disagreed, stating that centering merit in these discussions might reproduce gatekeeper biases, and highlighted the need to consider social and economic circumstances in assessing merit. Vibha also stated support for reservations, in light of the social and historical hurdle of opportunity. She continued that the Women’s Reservation Bill for parliamentary seats might open new doors to make more women-centric laws. Sanchita noted that making education inclusive at the inception is necessary to overcome the hurdles of opportunity.
Another key theme, drawn from the title of the film, was invisibility. Jayna mentioned how difficult it is for transwomen to get enrolled with the Bar Council, and that they are facing the same challenges that women were facing a 100 years ago—battling for the right to practise law in the first place. Sanchita added the perspective on disability and stated the need to overcome subconscious biases in hiring. Bhumika followed by challenging the culture of hero-worshipping in the profession and how the narratives and books on ‘legal geniuses’ have often remained silent on women’s contributions and legacies. Vibha interjected by calling for ‘sisternity’ or ‘sisterhood’ as one of the solutions and how her own majority of briefing as a senior counsel comes from men, rather than her women colleagues.
The final theme that the discussion touched upon was the next 100 years of womaning in the Indian legal profession and the need to make it inclusive for women from all caste, gender, and religious backgrounds. Justice Kohli pushed for the freedom of choice, and the need to change attitudes within families and communities first. Bhumika also mentioned the importance of property rights and financial security to ensure the freedom of choice. Bhumika and Sanchita emphasized the potential of technology to enable flexible working that could enhance women’s participation in the workforce. Jayna added that it is not just participation, but leadership of women in the law that is more important and why we need to include more names of women in recommendations for elevation to the benches. Vibha concluded by saying how we shouldn’t have to wait 149 years to bridge the gender gap and why we need to get to the numbers first, an enforced 50%, before getting into the debates on merit.
In her closing remarks Bhumika said, this is not be the end, but the beginning of a crucial conversation and the panel is by no means an exhaustive representation of the diversity of voices who need to be visibalised, which is where the future lies. While the optics and conversations have gotten better in the last 100 years, there is a lot more substantive work that needs to be done to address the system challenges women continue to battle in their everyday professional lives.
The full event recording can be watched here: