Women lawyers have come a long way, but the legal profession is still an old boys club: Advocate D Nagasaila (Part I)

Civil rights activist and lawyer at the Madras High Court D Nagasaila has consistently been opposing instances of state repression on behalf of dissidents, workers' unions and the marginalised minorities for over three decades..Having spent her initial years as a lawyer at the legendary law firm Row and Reddy and a member the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Nagasaila has appeared in countless cases relating to social justice, environmental rights, sexual harassment and corruption in the judiciary.She was one of the lawyers who first flagged the alleged hate speeches made by Justice L Victoria Gowri before she was elevated as a judge of the Madras High Court. She was also among those who had called for action against retired High Court judge Justice CS Karnan for issuing rape threats and sexually coloured remarks against wives of judges, women lawyers and female court staff..In part one this two-part interview with Bar & Bench's Ayesha Arvind, Nagasaila talks about how she perservered through the legal profession despite being a first-generation woman lawyer, the legends at the Madras Bar who inspired her, and more..Ayesha Arvind (AA): Was studying law a conscious choice for you?.D Nagasaila (DN): Yes, from a very young age, I was quite clear that I wanted to study law. It was not a very rational decision, but somehow the idea of justice attracted me.I think I was in the fourth standard when I realised that I was keen on studying law. It was something about my understanding of truth and justice, a very naïve kind of understanding, but it was there. I had no idea what it would entail, because there were no lawyers at home. My parents were not lawyers, I had no uncles or aunts who were lawyers, no friends whose parents were lawyers.I was in the sixth standard when I was reading the Perry Mason mysteries. So, Perry Mason was my only window into the legal profession.I won't say that it was a thought through decision, but my parents supported me. And at that time, since there was much talk about this five-year law course, after finishing my plus two, I joined the Madras Law College..AA: How was your time at the Madras Law College?.DN: I had the greatest learning experience at law college. Tamil Nadu was the first state to start the five-year law course for students and we were the first batch. I won't say that I learnt everything from the classroom. We did have lessons and learnt law in theory, but I think what we learnt outside the classroom was much more. It was an exposure to life, to society. From a very protected sort of a childhood, I was here in a new city, living in the hostel with people from different areas and cultures. And it was the first time that I was exposed to Tamil as a language.During our time especially, the Madras law College was known for frequent agitations by students. I think now, looking back, that it is a reflection of the society we live in. It definitely widened my horizons..AA: You mentioned earlier that studying in a government law college prepared you for the profession..DN: I say that because looking back, I realise we were interacting with people from all strata of society. The Madras Law College is not an elite kind of an institution like the private law schools of today. Of course, these private law schools have their own advantages in terms of curriculum and exposure of a different kind. But government law colleges such as the Madras Law College are more rooted and more relevant for the common man. The private law schools are grooming one for the corporate world, which is also their purpose essentially. Whereas, government law colleges are different in the sense that they offer their students a different kind of learning and a reality check.I think even for the college administration, it was a bit of a culture shock because for the first time, you had so many women students. We were a batch of 300 students, of which 100 were women. This was also the first time that so many women together had come to study law because until then, you had the three-year course, where in a batch, there would just be about three or four women..AA: On the point of learning more from what was happening outside the classroom than what was taught within the classroom, do you recall any particular instances?.DN: I clearly remember this one instance when there was this graffiti which was very anti-women that someone had drawn on one of our desks. Just the sheer fact that we were girls in large numbers, who were also quite vocal, gave us a lot of confidence. All us decided that unless the administration found out who were the culprits and brought them to task, we were not going to go back to class. We were staging a protest. We had also invited Justice VR Krishna Iyer to address us and he agreed to come. And then, some of us were issued orders of suspension by the college administration because we had invited Justice Krishna Iyer, although he had agreed to come. In fact, he had said he would speak to the college authorities to ensure there was no suspension.The point is that students being politically and socially active even within the campus is a very big learning process. And especially for law..During these agitations in college, we learnt about our rights such as the right to association, the right to free speech. And we also saw the contradictions that exist in society when one speaks of rights. You speak of your rights, but when it is actually time to exercise your rights, or to ensure there are no impediments to their exercise, it becomes a different ball game altogether.For us, it was really seeing the law in action. We were testing how much of what we learnt in books can be actually asserted. Such learning stays with one for the rest of one’s life. No amount of classroom learning can match that..AA: Did participating in such agitations push you towards representing labour and civil liberties matters in court?.DN: As a student, I was drawn to all of that.That was also the time, when in Chennai especially, a lot of large-scale slum evictions were taking place. There were some very active slumdwellers federations and very active women’s organisations.There was a very active federation called the Pennurimai Iyakkam. It used to be very active among the slum dwellers and on issues of women’s empowerment. As a college student, I used to volunteer with them to offer legal aid in cases of domestic violence etc, and as part of it, I had to interact closely with those affected. So that was again a very real sort of a learning, where whatever family law we were learning in the classroom, we were getting to see how it actually operates in the real world.These constant reality checks enhanced my understanding of the law. .It also made me realise that the law does not operate in a vacuum. It operates in a social context, an economic context, and in a political context. And as far as women's rights are concerned, the law operates in a patriarchal context. Something like this is never taught in schools or in law colleges, but if you do not understand this, I think your understanding of law is that much poorer.I would give equal credence to this parallel education I was getting, which enhanced my understanding of the law and gave me a clear direction in my career..AA: You also participated in the movement for bringing in the Central legislation for construction workers in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Tell us about that..DN: The construction workers, unlike the trade unions, belonged to an unorganised sector and there was a larger campaign going on nationwide to bring in a comprehensive legislation for them.I was attending these meetings that were being conducted by the unions and the Committee [National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour (NCC-CL)] for construction workers that again was headed by Justice Krishna Iyer.A bunch of us had travelled to Delhi to lobby for these rules. There again, I was interacting with construction workers and the several unions that represented them. That gave me an understanding of the labour law in operation and the interaction between labour laws and construction unions. And of course, the role that class plays. Because, ultimately, class is also an important factor in influencing the way laws pan out and their execution. So, I think in a way these experiences turn out to be real life examples in terms of operation of the law and gave me the understanding that very often a law comes because there is a bottom-up pressure.For instance, women's groups agitating for voting rights, workers groups agitating for humane work hours, decent working environment, etc. We only read that our eight-hour work shifts happened because of the May Day struggle. I mean, this May Day struggle is symbolic, something that we only read about. But here (the campaign for the construction workers’ legislation), I got to see the construction workers bill, how or why it needed to come into force. How it was a constant struggle on part of the construction workers from across the country, and how it was the result of a very organised campaign.Of course, how the law turned out in its final form [Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service Act, 1996, and the Cess Act)] and how it was implemented was a disaster and then there was a subsequent agitation to get the law repealed because it was so bad and unwelcome.That too was a learning experience.It taught me that no matter how much you struggle, there is very little control that you have over these things and it is actually in the hands of a legislator who can extended something to you with one hand and at the same time take it back with the other hand..AA: How were your earliest years at the Bar?.DN: I started my career here in Tamil Nadu with a lot of handicaps. One, I am not from the State. Two, I did not know the language, and three, I am a woman. I did not come here with any pedigree of another lawyer. My parents, my uncles, nobody else in my family is a lawyer. I did not have anybody feeding me briefs because sometimes what happens is when I am from a particular village, people from there will come to me because they know that I am from the same village.I don't know with what courage or conviction I continued moving forward. It was probably my youthfulness and naivete. Having said that, I must add that I also had the good fortune of having met the right people at the right time. I started my career with Justice K Chandru and went on to join Row and Reddy after that. All along the way, I got to work with people who became my role models..AA: How did you start working with Justice Chandru?.DN: My acquaintance with Justice Chandru was very accidental. When we were studying at the Madras Law College, we didn't have a proper lecturer for labour law and somebody told us that if Justice Chandru, who was then a lawyer, came and taught us, it would be really good. So, a bunch of us students went to him and ask if he could come teach us, and he agreed.He had been with Row and Reddy earlier, but when we went to him, he had set up his independent practice. He readily agreed and came to the college for lectures that essentially covered our syllabus on the Industrial Disputes Act and several such issues. His lectures were something else altogether. The kind of clarity with which he represented the laws to us was something that struck us. No other professor in any branch of law had given us such clarity before. And because of that, our understanding of labour law became something amazing. Once I finished my graduation, since I did not know too many people here in Chennai, I decided to go to Justice Chandru and ask him if I could practice with him. And just like that, he said, yes. There was no system of any organised placements. In fact, even now very few government law colleges have structured placements. You still have to fend for yourself after graduation..AA: Tell us about your experience working with him..DN: Justice Chandru continued to teach me throughout my work with him for the three or four years that I was with him. He would explain every case to me and actually take out the books and case laws for me and tell me what to read and how to read. He taught me to read every section clause by clause, from end to end and to take notes.Justice Chandru always used to say that a young lawyer learning the ropes must become like a perungayam (asafoetida) bottle. He used to say, how the smell of asafoetida lingers in the bottle long after the spice is over, you should absorb all the learnings and become like that bottle of asafoetida with the lingering smell.Also, when I first began working, I was quite politically naive. I had a very strong sense of right and wrong, and of justice and injustice, but it was all instinctive. I did not have a concrete idea of Marxism or the concept of class. All these ideological frameworks were absent. Working with Justice Chandru gave me a much better understanding.And then of course, I met Suresh (lawyer and her spouse, Advocate V Suresh), around that time and he comes from a very politically aware background. He had been working with tribal right organisations in Thane district in Maharashtra..Then I moved to Row and Reddy, which again is a legendary law office. When I joined the firm, there were NGR Prasad and Senior Advocate R Vaigai, who were legends. And there so many youngsters at the office, there was never a dull moment. We were constantly looking at ways to get everything that came our way redressed in a court of law..AA: How did you meet Advocate V Suresh?.DN: I met Suresh in Bangalore as a student. I had gone for an event conducted by the Medico Friend Circle. These are doctors who are very socially conscious and look at preventive healthcare. Suresh had come as a part of a tribal rights group that was working on tribal health. There was a meeting on tuberculosis, on how it was linked to poverty and education, and they were trying to establish how the impact of tuberculosis cannot be understood if it is looked at purely as a medical health issue because it is also about poverty, hygiene, and access to health care. In 1989, we got married and he moved to Chennai with me because I wanted to continue working there..AA: Let us talk about gender and the law in India. Courts have often flagged lapses in the implementation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing gender equality..DN: I can speak about the labour side, because I don't practice on the matrimonial side, which is a completely different situation. I do handle cases of sexual harassment at the workplace and I will say that the laws are still very heavily loaded against the woman.Right from the word go, the moment a woman gives a complaint of sexual harassment, she is isolated. She begins to face a lot of charge memos. While the man, the perpetrator, is given all the protection. The establishment in fact often ends up standing with the perpetrator while the woman is totally left at sea.Whether it is the private sector or the public sector, what I have seen is that in a case of sexual harassment, they will call the woman and tell her stuff such as, 'It is going to sound very bad, what will your parents think? What will your husband say? Your family might not allow you to continue to work, so it is better that you withdraw your complaint, that you keep it quiet etc...' And it is against all of this resistance that a woman has to fight even to give a complaint. There are so many people standing at different levels to pull you back. It could be your family, your parents, your friends, your employers, or colleagues. You have to withstand this entire negative pull and you have to really push against all of this. And in the process, what happens is the moment you give a complaint, all these people who are otherwise your support structure turn against you, because they all feel you have gone ahead and given the complaint against their advice.It is really an uphill battle for a woman complainant. And despite all of it, if you do go ahead and give a complaint, then the whole system begins to work towards persuading you to withdraw this complaint. And if you still stand your ground, then you are seen as being an unreasonable and an adamant woman, a cantankerous woman..AA: Is it because the POSH Act falls short when it comes to addressing accountability, or is it a problem with the entire system?.DN: It is a larger problem, because as we see in most cases, even when the law guarantees certain rights and protection to women, its implementation is often not up to the mark. For instance, once a woman gives a complaint under the POSH Act, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) will begin its inquiry. And this inquiry may go on forever.Complainants encounter a lot of procedural problems, because people who are part of the ICC are not very often trained well about the procedure. Because of these lacunae, at the end of it all, even if they find that the complaint is made out, it will be set aside on procedural grounds.So, at the workplace level, a woman is never given the support structure she is entitled to, whether it is counselling or removing her from being under the control of the perpetrator. None of it happens really. The whole institution comes down like a ton of bricks on the woman instead.So much so that today, when a woman comes to me with a complaint of sexual harassment, I have to tell her that these are the risks you face because as a lawyer, I cannot protect you from all of this. I can't guarantee that your job can be safe or, that you will come out of it unscathed. I may conduct your case, but there is a limitation to how much I can protect you. Even after all of this if you are still willing, I will take up your matter.This is what I have seen. And courts too are not very receptive as far this is concerned. Because, just as a worker is seen as a nuisance, people who complain against pollution are considered a nuisance, a woman who complains and raises a voice, is also seen as a nuisance..AA: Is the legal profession as inclusive as it should be for women?.DN: There is one set of women lawyers who are the children or the spouses of lawyers, so for them it is okay because they already have a protective mechanism around them.Then, there were people like me who were fortunate to have been in the right kind of offices, with seniors who had the right kind of political perspective, whether it was Mr Chandru or Mr Prasad at Row and Reddy. They were all standing for women’s rights, so we were not only protected, but also encouraged. Harassment was never there, and we never felt that being a woman in anyway was a disadvantage or an impediment.But we do hear from other women lawyers. Maybe it is a little less now, but there were many offices when we were young which didn’t take women employees for whatever reasons. Someone once famously said, “Women in office are a distraction.”From then to now, we have come a long way; there are a lot of offices with women employees and women lawyers. But in terms of the legal profession as a whole, it is still an old boys club.It is the same in most professions I think, whether it is the corporates or even trade unions. Even today, it is all about your engagements outside the courts. So, you meet in clubs or in associations or in your rotaries. You will have a drink together, or tea, and you will network. All that networking makes it an old boys club and women can't break into it.And, in fact, if you do break into it, you will be looked at very differently. You'll be perceived as a very different kind of woman. It would make it worse for you. It would ruin your reputation. So, that prejudice till exists.