This is the second part of the three-part series on ‘under-representation of women lawyers at the trial court level‘ as a part of the Justicemakers’ Writer’s Training Program, run in partnership with Agami and Ashoka’s Law For All Initiative. The first and third parts can be found here and here.
India has one of the lowest female workforce participation rates in the world. According to the World Bank, the participation of women in the workforce fell from 26% in 2005 to 20.3% in 2019 in the country. Several factors, including rampant sexism in a male-dominated environment, affect the participation of women in the legal field.
I noted previously that societal gendered expectations play a significant role in influencing the work culture women experience in the legal space.
In this light, gender sensitization is one of the several conscious steps that employers may take towards rooting out these biases – the process entails increasing awareness regarding the needs of different genders by encouraging participants to question their stereotypes and preconceived beliefs.
In fact, in March 2021, the Supreme Court of India ordered mandatory ‘gender sensitization’ for lawyers and judges, in order to curb decisions influenced by entrenched patriarchal and misogynist notions. The sensitization was proposed to be conducted through a module to be devised by the National Judicial Academy within three months.
The direction came after the Court struck down an order of the Madhya Pradesh HC wherein bail was granted to the alleged molester on the condition that he will request the complainant to tie a ‘rakhi’ on him.
So far, there has been no update on the development of such a module, and the processes through which the same will form a part of lawyers’ training. In this article, I discuss some observations based on my interactions with members of the legal profession.
Are Workplaces Taking Sensitization Seriously?
Section 19(c) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 impresses a duty upon employers to ‘organise workshops and awareness programmes at regular intervals for sensitising the employees with the provisions of the Act’, as well as orient members of the Internal Complaints Committees w.r.t. the same.
For instance, the Gender Sensitisation Internal Complaints Committees (GSICC) at the Supreme Court conducted a seminar about equipping volunteers of the Committee to deal with various kinds of complaints of sexual harassment that would be brought before them. The GSICC was formed in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s judgments in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) which mandated the protection of women from harassment at workplaces since the same forms a part of the right to work with dignity.
On January 28, 2022, I contacted the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal to inquire about the status of gender sensitization workshops/training conducted for judicial officers. The person who answered my call asked me to check the status on the website of the Academy, on the ‘Concluded Programmes’ page. I informed them that the last such training as per the Academy’s website happened back in November 2015, and asked if there are any further updates. To this, they responded negatively.
Subsequently, I looked at publicly available information regarding gender sensitization conducted by courts in India. The following illustration demonstrates my observations for five courts in the country.
Do We Need Sensitization On Gender Sensitization?
The illustration above clearly demonstrates how the objective and benefits behind gender sensitization continue to be neglected in the legal space.
In fact, all of us may remember how ex-Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, proceeded to be a part of the bench that took Suo Motu cognizance of sexual harassment allegations made against him. To better understand this grim reality, I reached out to individuals in the legal community through a survey.
The respondents included legal practitioners before the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, as well as Dr Sarah Karunakaran, who assisted in the gender sensitization session that was organized for the staff at the Madras High Court.
They highlighted how the profession continues to be male-dominated – one of the respondents specifically noted that the visibility of women in criminal litigation is ‘negligible’.
Others highlighted the lack of family support for women who choose to tread this path and networking barriers that prevent women from forging ‘semi-professional connections’.
Given this situation, there are several reasons why sensitization becomes essential: one, it enables employers to take corrective measures to remedy the discriminatory and hostile work environment that women in their organizations face; two, it allows for better analysis of diversity in experiences, thereby contributing to policy-making on gender issues at the workplace; and three, it contributes to better awareness in spaces beyond the workplace.
93.3% of the respondents expounded on the need for gender sensitization by citing different reasons.
Through her response, Dr Karunakaran highlighted how such training should be a part of the academic curriculum in law universities, and that members of the profession should have exposure to certain forums to keep ‘gender discussions moving’.
Other respondents suggested that the Bar Council of India can introduce such sensitization in courts and tribunals. Several respondents also recommended the use of workshops, pamphlets, speeches and other interactive activities as potential ways of increasing the reach of sensitization.
If these are the responses of individuals who have attained education at institutions that are considered to be ‘prestigious’, it is worrying to imagine the level of sensitization received by the large majority of advocates who work in the lower courts.
The Report of the ‘Expert Committee on Gender and Education’ recommended the formation of a task force to inculcate gender sensitivity and awareness of laws relating to the protection of women/human rights through a change in school curriculums.
Similarly, the Supreme Court recommended the Bar Council to consult subject matter experts and circulate a paper for discussion with law faculties, colleges and universities on the courses that should be taught at the undergraduate level in the LLB programme. However, whether or not such recommendations are pursued with sincerity and earnestness across legal institutions remains to be seen.
Better accountability and affirmative action in these respects will probably go a long way in impacting workplaces and jurisprudence.