In over seven decades, the Supreme Court of India has had only 11 women judges, and currently, only one woman judge, Justice B V Nagarathna, features in the 33 male judges-dominated top court. Ahead of International Women’s Day, The Indian Express held a panel discussion with senior advocate and former Patna High Court Justice (retd) Anjana Prakash, senior advocate Liz Mathew, and advocate Vidhi Thaker, who topped the 2023 Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record examination.The three generations reflected on their experiences in litigation, from subtle gender biases and mentorship to the institutional changes needed to ensure women are not only present in the legal system but able to thrive within it.Edited excerpts of the panel discussion follow:Gender discrimination within judiciaryAnjana Prakash: You will probably be surprised to know that although I started practising in Bihar, which people often describe as a “backward” state, I personally did not experience discrimination in the profession from clients or colleagues. Clients never hesitated to approach me because I was a woman. They simply came to me as a lawyer. They would address me as “madam,” sometimes as “didi,” or even in familial terms like “bhabhi” or “chachi,” but there was never any hesitation about consulting a woman advocate.In many ways, I believe this was also because I myself never internalised a gendered way of looking at my profession. From childhood, I did not think of myself in terms of gender when it came to my work. I approached my work simply as a professional responsibility. Perhaps because I carried that attitude, the people who approached me also did not treat me differently as a woman lawyer.However, there was an incident later in my career that revealed how deeply social conditioning around gender can operate.By that time, I had already become a judge. There was a large conference being organised in Patna, and one of my former colleagues from the bar, who had also been elevated to the bench earlier, was involved in forming different committees for the event.When the committee lists came out, I found that I had been placed in the “food committee,” along with another woman judge and some women district judges.Story continues below this adI found that extremely objectionable. I immediately called him and asked, “How can you do something like this?” This was someone I had known for years, someone who came from a progressive family. He knew my work and my temperament. I told him very clearly that assigning women judges to a food committee simply because they were women reflected a gender stereotype that I could not accept.After I protested strongly, he immediately changed the committee and placed me in the seminar committee. But what struck me was that this was not necessarily done consciously or maliciously.These attitudes are so deeply ingrained in our social conditioning that people often reproduce them without even realising it.The other woman judge who had been assigned to the same committee actually laughed it off when I mentioned it to her. She shrugged her shoulders and did not think it was a big issue. But for me, it was deeply objectionable. I felt that if we do not protest these small but symbolic things, they continue to perpetuate gender roles in professional spaces.At the same time, I must also acknowledge that I came from a relatively privileged background. My father-in-law was an eminent lawyer, and that gave me a certain level of professional acceptance. Because of that privilege, I cannot claim that my experience represents the experience of every woman in the profession. Many women lawyers who do not have such support systems may face very different challenges.Story continues below this adLiz Mathew: I was designated as a senior advocate in January 2024, but the process had actually begun much earlier. I think applications were invited around 2021, and that is when I applied.To be very honest, becoming a senior advocate had never been a specific aspiration for me. I was already an Advocate-on-Record and was quite content doing the work I was doing. Litigation itself keeps you busy enough that you are focused on the cases in front of you rather than thinking too much about titles or positions.In fact, it was some of the judges and senior members of the bar who encouraged me to apply for the designation. They asked me whether I had considered it, and initially, I was not sure. But when I started preparing the application and documenting my work, something interesting happened.I began to look back at the number of cases I had handled, the matters I had argued, and the work I had done over the years. That process itself gave me a sense of confidence.Story continues below this adI realised that I had actually built a substantial body of work over time. The exercise of documenting it made me see my own career in a different light. In that sense, the senior designation process itself gave me the confidence to step into a new phase of my professional life.Also Read | Meet Anita Jha: The Madhubani Lawyer Who Has Practised from Her Car for 13 YearsThe system today also has clearer guidelines compared to earlier times. After the Supreme Court’s judgments laying down criteria for designation, there are certain measurable parameters. You have to submit details of the judgments you have argued, the kind of work you have done, your pro bono contributions, and your standing at the Bar. These are all evaluated through a point-based system.Because of this structured process, I felt that the evaluation was largely content-based. You knew that your work would be assessed on rational criteria. That made the process more transparent and fair.As far as gender is concerned, I personally did not feel that it played a negative role in my case. If anything, I felt confident because I knew the quality and volume of my work.Story continues below this adAt the Supreme Court, I believe the quality of your arguments and the work you produce eventually determines your professional growth. Once people recognise the quality of your work, opportunities tend to follow.Vidhi Thaker: Litigation is inherently a difficult profession to enter, regardless of gender. It has a very long gestation period. In the initial years, there is a great deal of financial instability, and your career trajectory is often uncertain. Unlike corporate jobs, where there is a relatively structured progression, litigation requires patience and perseverance. In a Women’s Day conversation, senior and young lawyers reflected on gender bias, mentorship gaps, and structural barriers in litigation and judicial appointments. (File Photo)These are challenges that both men and women face when they enter the profession. However, women do face some additional barriers that are often subtle but significant.One of these relates to perceptions of competence. When men and women graduate from law school, they come out with more or less the same level of knowledge and training. But once they enter professional spaces, there can sometimes be assumptions about reliability or capability.Story continues below this adFor instance, a male junior might be perceived as someone who can stay late in the office or travel for work more easily. There may also be assumptions that he can handle certain logistical tasks within the court system more comfortably because those spaces are often male-dominated.Young women lawyers often want to be judged solely based on their competence and performance. What we seek is an opportunity to prove ourselves through our work rather than being evaluated based on preconceived notions about our abilities.Another important factor is mentorship and the allocation of responsibilities. In the early years of litigation, small opportunities can make a significant difference in building confidence. For example, the first time your senior allows you to argue a matter in court, or when a judge addresses you directly by name during a hearing, it can be extremely encouraging.Also Read | From terror blasts to child murders and honour killings: The 21 women on death row in IndiaMentors and seniors play a crucial role in creating those opportunities. Their trust in young lawyers helps build professional confidence and allows them to grow within the system.Story continues below this adNetworking is another dimension that affects career growth. A lot of professional networking happens informally — during conversations in the court corridors, over coffee at court cafeterias, or during conferences and outstation matters. Sometimes women may find it more difficult to access these informal spaces.However, things are also changing with the rise of digital platforms and virtual interactions. Young lawyers today can build professional visibility through new channels as well. Even so, we are still some distance away from saying that the profession offers a completely level playing field.What we seek is not preferential treatment but equality of opportunity — a system where everyone begins from the same starting line.Women’s representation in the judiciaryAnjana Prakash: I think one of the first things we must understand is the historical context. Today, nearly 50 percent of law graduates may be women, but that was not the case several decades ago. The eligibility for becoming a judge requires at least ten years of practice, and often judges are considered for elevation at around 45 or 50 years of age.Story continues below this adTherefore, the pool from which judges are selected reflects the gender composition of the legal profession decades earlier.Having said that, I do believe there have been many deserving women lawyers who could have been elevated but were not. Some of this may be linked to visibility and networking within the profession.In litigation, it is not enough to simply do your work quietly. It is also important to be visible in professional spaces, to be part of discussions, conferences, and networks where your work is noticed.Many women lawyers, for various personal or social reasons, may not engage as actively in these networks. That can sometimes affect their professional recognition.Another factor is social privilege. In many professions, including law, people who come from certain backgrounds — whether in terms of family, caste, or social networks — may have greater access to opportunities. A highly competent lawyer who does not belong to such networks may find it harder to be noticed.The judicial appointment system, whether it was the earlier political system or the current collegium system, is ultimately run by human beings. And human beings inevitably carry their own perceptions, biases, and limitations. That is something we have to recognise while discussing these issues.Kanpur incident and need for sensitisationAnjana Prakash: What we are seeing today is a certain level of social deterioration. The more loudly we talk about equality, the less equality seems to exist in practice. In many ways, there is now greater visible objectification of women than there was earlier. What was particularly disturbing about that incident (dance performances at a Holi event organised by the Kanpur Bar Association sparked controversy, and supreme court women laywer association alleged that it had promoted the objectification of women and undermined professional ethics in legal spaces) was not just that the event took place, but that people appeared to enjoy it. They were filming it and circulating it. That is deeply troubling.It reflects the same insensitivity we see when someone records a tragic incident — even a lynching — instead of intervening. It shows a certain crassness and a disregard for basic values, including respect for the rule of law and social balance.Liz Mathew: If bar associations had greater representation of women — something the Supreme Court has recently attempted to address by introducing 33 per cent reservation — perhaps someone would have paused to question the appropriateness of such an event. Even nominal representation can make a difference.It prevents institutions from functioning like an exclusive “boys’ club” and introduces a necessary moment of reflection: Is this appropriate? Is this right? Women in positions of decision-making can influence outcomes in meaningful ways.At the Bar level, representation matters because it shapes the culture of the institution. In situations like this, if women had been part of the decision-making process, such an event may never have been approved.Vidhi Thaker: That incident reflects something troubling about us as a society. Those responsible for organising the event must seriously reconsider their actions. As lawyers, we carry a responsibility not only to the profession but also to society at large. It is, therefore, deeply disturbing that such an event could take place within a Bar Association gathering. If I am not mistaken, it was held within the court complex itself, which makes it even more shocking. Incidents like this highlight the urgent need for greater sensitisation within the profession.Ultimately, we must treat our profession with the dignity it deserves. Any event organised within court premises must reflect the core values and principles that the legal profession stands for.Balance between life milestones and professionAnjana Prakash: It was very, very exhausting. It was the most difficult thing to do, to balance the home and your children, you know, send them to school every morning and then come back, and then you listen to the tantrums, and then also listen to the tantrums of the class. It was not only, you know, exhausting, but also like, what do I say? You just didn’t know what was coming up against you every day. Every day was a challenge.Liz Mathew: In many ways, motherhood made me a better lawyer. It gave me a sense of confidence that I could handle complex situations, both personally and professionally.Of course, motherhood also brings challenges. There are constant demands on your time. When you have young children, you often feel pulled in different directions — between professional responsibilities and family commitments.In my case, I had my office space within my home. My office was in the basement, and the living space was upstairs. That arrangement sometimes created its own tensions. When I was in the office working, I would feel that I should probably be upstairs with the children. And when I was upstairs, I would feel that I should be working.But litigation also offers a certain flexibility that some other professions may not. I maintained a routine of going to court and managing my cases, but the nature of litigation allowed some flexibility in managing my schedule.Over time, motherhood also made me more efficient with my time. I learned to prioritise tasks and avoid wasting time unnecessarily. In that sense, both roles — motherhood and professional life — ended up complementing each other.Institutional reforms needed for young lawyersAnjana Prakash: On the institutional level, people in positions of power should avoid being patronising toward those they perceive as disadvantaged — whether a disabled person, a woman, or someone marginalised because of caste or background. They must be treated as equals. Unless equality becomes the starting point, nothing will improve.A woman is not competing with a male lawyer; she is simply an equal professional.I am not in competition with other women or with male lawyers. I have created my own place in the profession, and that is enough. What is required is to normalise the idea that women work — and work effectively — despite the challenges they may face.Instead of treating women as people who need special attention or concessions, institutions and colleagues must engage with them as equals. The same principle applies across other forms of disadvantage, including caste. Treat people as equals, speak to them as equals, and the professional environment will naturally become more balanced and fair.Liz Mathew: Institutionally, there are already some supportive measures — for instance, the Supreme Court has a crèche facility. But, in my view, what is far more important is mentorship. Leadership must be able to recognise individual needs and respond to them, rather than assume that all women face the same challenges. Each woman has her own circumstances.At the same time, it is not necessary to constantly frame women as vulnerable or to emphasise concessions. As we can already see, many women have succeeded in the profession, and their success itself is an encouragement. What is needed is for those in positions of power — both men and women — to identify capable women lawyers and give them opportunities. When given the chance, they can perform just as well as their male counterparts.Also Read | They secured 150+ convictions: Meet Sonipat lawyer couple turning India’s darkest legal files into justiceWomen, too, often learn to ensure that personal or family challenges do not affect their professional responsibilities. Ultimately, institutions must simply be mindful that people face different constraints.Some of these challenges may be specific to women and can be addressed through practical adjustments. But beyond that, what truly matters is ensuring that merit and effort are recognised, and that opportunities are not denied because of stereotypes. All we really require is a fair seat at the table.Vidhi Thaker: Institutions today certainly have the intention of creating a level playing field. However, intention needs to be supported by concrete action.For example, the introduction of virtual courts has been extremely helpful for young parents, particularly those with newborn children. It allows them to continue participating in proceedings while managing family responsibilities.Another idea could be creating affordable co-working spaces within court complexes. Many young lawyers cannot afford to set up their own offices in the early years of their practice. A shared professional space where they could meet clients or hold discussions would be very helpful.These measures would benefit not only women lawyers but young lawyers in general. What young professionals need is an institutional ecosystem that supports their growth during the initial years of practice.