An old Remington typewriter, a poster of Bollywood film Indira, starring Hema Malini as a legal crusader, posters on violence against women that say ‘Use the Law to Resist It’, shelves lined with law books—the stage props that make up Indira Jaising’s office space only partly depart from the norm, and she’s quick to make light of the film poster. The additional solicitor general has two firsts connected to her name—she’s the first woman to occupy that post; she was at the forefront of the campaign against Justice Ramaswami, leading to the first impeachment proceedings against a Supreme Court judge. These days, however, she’s in the news as the person who shattered the omerta around sexual harassment by senior judges—which many describe as the judiciary’s worst kept secret. “I’d rather be remembered as a woman who raised the issue of integrity in the highest court of the land,” she says, “though, yes, I did lend my voice to the interns who spoke up against sexual harassment by senior judges of the court.”
In a span of two months, two senior judges—Justice A.K. Ganguly and Justice Swatanter Kumar—have been named by young interns complaining of sexual harassment. There have always been whispers in legal circles about some judges’ predatory instincts. But never before has the way women, and young interns at that, are treated by their illustrious seniors, and judges at that, come out the way it now has.
In l’affaire Ganguly, Jaising wrote to the prime minister reminding him that sexual harassment was a gross violation of human rights and requested him to make a reference to the Supreme Court to remove Justice Ganguly from his post as head of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission. She followed that with a bombshell: an article that the Indian Express front-paged and banner-headlined ‘Is this how you would treat your daughter, My Lord?’ In this she laid bare the harrowing details of what the intern went through, using with permission passages from her affidavit to an SC committee. She says she felt compelled to do so. Justice Ganguly, who has now stepped down, had till then been adamantly refusing to do so.
Predictably, her actions have set off a spate of conspiracy theories. What did she have against the judges? Was she working with the UPA to demolish the reputation of the judges who had indicted the government in their pronouncements? All Jaising will say in response is that she’s on the side of women. And staunchly so.
Feisty, left-of-centre, stubborn—these are some of the adjectives fellow advocates deploy to describe her. Divided though they may be in matters of ideology, they all agree without debate that in her overlapping identities as a human being, a woman, a women’s rights activist and a lawyer, Jaising speaks the language she practises. There are many who believe that, had it not been for Jaising’s intervention, the issue of sexual harassment in courts would have remained under wraps.
Though complaints against Supreme Court judges have been made by women in the past, there never has been the sort of acknowledgement of the truth that the additional solicitor general is seeking. Her silver hair and status as a senior member of the profession haven’t guaranteed protection either: it is just a few days back that a senior counsel who referred to Jaising as “that woman” had to be given a quick lesson on the proper way of addressing a woman colleague. She also says she’s been sexually harassed on occasion and has had to confront the perpetrators—sometimes physically. In the inflexibly hierarchical structure that defines the court and its functions, she says, those in the lower rungs, especially women and young women interns, are often made to experience acute inequalities. “The judiciary is the last bastion of a feudal and hierarchical structure—and that has to change,” she says. “And unfortunately, I have to add, judges just can’t take women seriously.”
There have been three unintended consequences of Jaising’s actions. The first is positive: the legal fraternity is pleased that the horrible truth is out in the open. Second, men have taken to play the “weaker sex” in mock admissions of fear, such as, “Oh! We just won’t be seen alone with a female colleague!” The third is worrying: some say they’d rather not hire women or have women working with them.
Be that as it may, activists like Kavita Krishnan, president of the All-India Progressive Women’s Association, are all praise for Jaising and her work. “She stands like a shield for women, and she’s here to uphold the Constitution,” says Kavita, who worked with Jaising, lawyer Vrinda Grover and other women activists towards the creation of a law against sexual harassment at the work place—which is here to stay, and which has come to haunt the two judges.
Senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan, who has been vocal on the issue of sexual harassment and has no problems with the new law, says his only concern, however, is that the rigorous practice of going by the law should not be overlooked in the atmosphere of populism that surrounds the issue. “The issue depends on the girl’s affidavit,” he says. “Nothing has been proved. But there’s been a huge indictment by the media and others. The Supreme Court acted in excess by denying jurisprudence and by going by the prima facie view. The complaints of the interns have to be tested by the law.” It’s a view senior advocate Manoj Goel shares: “Populism,” he says, “should not ride roughshod over constitutional values.” And Dhavan is firm that, just because they are retired judges, they can’t be said to be above legal scrutiny.
Those are valid, well-reasoned positions. But as to the charges from others that she has caused systemic damage, Jaising says, “I have no vested interests. My approach is based on my commitment to equality. I am not indebted to judges or colleagues.” It’s a commitment that has seen her fight for fair wages for labourers and take up the cause of pavement dwellers and other marginalised groups. “They have nothing but the law to protect them,” she asserts. That belief was amply on display when she defended the Right to Education when some private institutions contested it. Says journalist Olga Tellis, who has known Jaising for a long time, “She’s committed to the causes she champions and stubbornly holds on to what she believes in.”
The workplace law and the Visakha guidelines, which bear the imprints of Jaising, the late Justice J.S. Verma and Justice Leila Seth among others, have come to bear upon those who might have thought their high offices would bring them immunity. As Jaising says, these young women have grown up in a different climate: the Visakha guidelines, dealing with sexual harassment in public places, came in 1997, when the interns may have been in their teens. They have seen it in practice, and perhaps that’s why they are confidently able to demand equal treatment. Things are changing.
Due to retire around April, Jaising plans to devote her time to Hindustani classical music, which she is known to practise (as a vocalist) with the same rigour she brings to her legal work. The young interns who have spoken out—and all women at work—will remain indebted to that distinctive voice, smoky and at times raspy, for putting its considerable strength behind their cause.
Apropos The Lady Sings Strength (Jan 27), to many Indians, it seems that some people are more equal than others before the law. It’s for such people that India needs lawyers like Indira Jaising.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Well it is being hoisted by its own petard.
Last decade has seen a bunch of cases undergoing trial by media with unsubstantiated selective leaks from time to time. Then justice quoting the "collective conscience" of the society to punish the defendents.
Now that it is getting the same treatment it is crying foul!
It is not against the MCP's, people should also watch the movie ,"The Hunt" to get the other side of the coin too.
In our country many people with power and control think like this "All are equal before law but some are more equal than others. For those people we need persons like Indira Jaising . I like her for this clear quote "“It is important to separate the judge from the judiciary" . I would like to add attorneys also into that category as many of them think that no one can touch them even if they violate rules.
79 pinaki ray
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT