Back
Indira Jaising Exposes Judiciary's Dirty Secret: Widespread of Women Judges
In a startling revelation that has sent shockwaves through India’s legal community, has publicly declared that is the “dirty secret” of the Indian judiciary. Speaking at the 29th D.S. Borker Memorial Lecture, Jaising disclosed that she has personally received complaints from numerous women judges who have been subjected to by their male colleagues. Her remarks come as a rare, unfiltered glimpse into a deeply hierarchical institution that has long been shielded from public scrutiny.
Jaising, a leading constitutional lawyer and women’s rights advocate, did not mince words. She stated, “In the course of my experience, I have had to deal with women judges. I have represented a lot of women judges. These women judges have come to me with complaints about by male judges, which is why I did write in my book that is the dirty secret of the judiciary of India. No one wants to talk about it.” The lecture, held under the aegis of the , provided a platform for Jaising to articulate a vision for India in 2047 and to call out systemic failures within the justice system.
The Feudal Architecture of the Judiciary
Central to Jaising’s critique was the entrenched hierarchy that pervades the judicial system. She argued that this hierarchical structure creates an environment where can thrive with impunity. To illustrate her point, Jaising recounted a specific incident involving a woman judge she had represented. According to Jaising, this judge described a practice in which, upon the retirement of a judge, women judges were required to “line up, wear sarees of the same colour, and throw flowers at all the male judges who walk past entering into the dining room.” Jaising condemned this as a feudal expectation that perpetuates a culture of subservience.
“The and judges expect this from judges, and it has devastating consequences most particularly for women judges,” Jaising said. She added that the same woman judge who narrated this practice faced from a male judge who told her to “come to my 25th wedding anniversary party and dance on an 'item number'.” When she resisted, she lost her job. This anecdote underscores the grave that women judges face when they refuse to comply with such degrading demands.
A System of Silence and Complicity
Jaising’s comments align with earlier observations made by , who also spoke at the lecture. Dr Muralidhar addressed a range of issues, including judicial delays and student protests, but specifically highlighted the growing instances of women judges experiencing “the trauma of sexual innuendo and harassment” at the hands of senior male colleagues. He too decried the hierarchical and feudalistic practices within the judiciary, calling for urgent institutional reform.
The silence surrounding these issues is systemic. Unlike in other professions, judges are bound by a that often discourages public airing of grievances. Internal complaints mechanisms are weak, and the fear of professional repercussions—including —keeps many victims from speaking out. Jaising’s willingness to bring these allegations into the open is seen as a watershed moment, especially as she represents a rare voice of authority within the legal fraternity.
Broader Implications for Judicial Credibility
The revelations come at a time when public trust in the judiciary is already fragile. High-profile cases of in other sectors—such as the #MeToo movement—have sparked demands for accountability, but the judiciary has largely remained insulated. Jaising’s intervention forces a reckoning. If the very institution that adjudicates claims is itself a site of abuse, the credibility of the entire justice delivery system is called into question.
Legal experts point out that the problem is compounded by the fact that many women judges lack the institutional support to file complaints. The absence of a robust within the higher judiciary, coupled with a culture of deference to seniority, creates a perfect storm. Jaising’s account of a judge being asked to perform an “item number” at a wedding anniversary party—and then losing her job for refusing—illustrates how power asymmetries are weaponized.
Beyond the Judiciary: Constitutional Threats
The lecture was not limited to . Jaising also addressed broader constitutional concerns, expressing apprehension about recent political developments. She argued that the of India is under threat from proposals such as “one nation, one election” and the linking of with women’s reservation. “These are destructive ideas of the ,” she warned.
When asked what gives her hope for change, especially by Gen Z audiences, Jaising pointed to the Constitution itself. “So long as we as citizens are able to prevent the ruling party from changing the , there is hope. Because so long as the stays as it is, there is no single act of this government which is extra constitutional which can’t be challenged.” She specifically flagged the “” required to amend the Constitution and the use of to curb opposition representation.
A Call for Institutional Reform
The intersection of and constitutional endangerment is significant. Jaising’s lecture underscores that the judiciary’s internal decay cannot be separated from the external pressures it faces. For the legal community, the takeaway is clear: without addressing the feudal culture within the judiciary, the institution’s ability to defend the Constitution—and the rights of vulnerable groups—will remain compromised.
Dr Muralidhar echoed this sentiment, noting that the very same hierarchical attitudes that enable also hinder judicial efficiency and access to justice. “The time of the courts is largely consumed by the rich and the corporate world,” Jaising added, arguing that ordinary litigants are left with scant judicial attention.
Looking Ahead: 2047 and Beyond
Jaising expressed hope that by 2047—the centenary of Indian independence—these embarrassing practices would end. However, she stressed that change must start now. The legal community, she implied, must shed its feudal hangover and embrace equality and dignity for all members, regardless of gender.
For women judges, the path forward remains arduous. But Jaising’s courage in speaking out may inspire others to break their silence. The judiciary, if it is to retain its moral authority, must confront this dirty secret head-on. As Jaising noted, the Constitution provides the framework; it is up to the people—including lawyers, judges, and citizens—to enforce it.
The D.S. Borker Memorial Lecture thus served as more than a critique; it was a call to action. For legal professionals, the message is unmistakable: the judiciary’s dirty secret can no longer remain hidden.
