Women don't want quotas; just give us our due: Justice Hima Kohli on 100 years of Indian women in law

Women do not need quotas, but deserve their due in the legal profession in India, former Supreme Court judge Justice Hima Kohli recently said while arguing against need for reservation for women judges.

To a question on how the issue of representation on the Bench can be tackled, the retired judge said,

"I do not think there should be any concession on merits. I do not think nor have seen that women want or need quotas. Just our due. You cannot detach yourself from your background and gender. You do not need to feel sorry about it, it is a part of you, just look like one or behave like one and get on with it. Sometimes we are conscious; our colleagues may not be. We need to navigate our own feminism too."

Justice Kohli was speaking as part of a panel discussion at an event held to mark 100 years since the passage of the Legal Practitioner's (Women) Act of 1923, which first granted women the right to practice law in India.

The event, supported by the Society for Democratic Rights and the University of Cambridge, was held at the Constitution Club of India, New Delhi on October 25.

The event comprised a film launch and a panel discussion to celebrate the fearless, relentless and significant contributions of women to the Indian legal system, through their work as judges, lawyers, advocates, policymakers, journalists, academics, writers and students. 

The short film, titled ‘(IN)VISIBLE’ by Bhumika Billa (Researcher and Artist, University of Cambridge), was funded by Cambridge Creative Encounters.

The panel discussion that followed also featured Senior Advocates Vibha Datta Makhija and Jayna Kothari, and Advocate Sanchita Ain. It was moderated by journalist Suhasini Haidar.

More from the discussion

While introducing the short film, Billa spoke of how women are rendered invisible in society, and at the same time, are always facing the male gaze. The film represented the injustice women face in their day-to-day lives, she added. She said that she does not recall being taught of female legal geniuses during law school.

Justice Kohli pointed out that the challenge in courts for women has been to make themselves visible, because not just most lawyers, but even most clients are male.

"Women who came were primarily in the family law litigation. Criminal and others, which were my forte, it was never easy to connect with clients. Now we have women in IPR, tax law etc it is very heartening."

Makhija pointed out that even today, she has very few women counsel briefing her.

"Historically, women are socially trained to appease men and we become more attuned to want praise by men; you'd much rather be mentored by them. Women are seen as women even by women themselves."

Kothari said that ultimately, only one's work and merit should matter in court for counsel.

"At the same time, we do carry out identities with us. Your work should matter. For trans persons (in law), it is very difficult; even enrolment."

Ain spoke of the inherent biases people have against hiring specially-abled persons.

Justice Kohli then stressed that it is not any particular statute that will in itself change the course for women, but the implementation of the same. The former judge added that with the support of family and community, the journey becomes much easier for women.

Kothari said Article 15(1) of the Constitution (no discrimination on grounds of sex etc) has been the basis of landmark legislation and judgments protecting women's rights.

"It is important to internalise this value of the Constitution. Ours is one of the progressive Constitutions."

Makhija the highlighted that getting to parity itself is a long journey.

Billa stressed on the importance of financial freedom for women, while supporting quotas.

Justice Kohli opined that the income criteria (for elevation of a lawyer as a judge in the High Courts and the Supreme Court) needs to be looked at in a nuanced way for women.

"If all things were really equal then it would reflect so, but the kinds of cases she does she may not always draw the same cheques. When all these are equal then merit will take care of most."

Kothari agreed with the same.

"We have to tackle the criteria as well. We have to look at the criteria in an equal way so that more women across backgrounds and castes get in."

Makhija said women cannot be kept waiting and that representation on the Bench needs to be increased to 50 per cent.

Billa concluded the discussion by stating that the same was not the end, but the beginning of a larger conversation surrounding women in the legal profession.