Hon’ble Ms. Justice Pratibha Singh is a judge of the Delhi High Court. She recently spoke at a felicitation ceremony held for another woman judge- Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli of the Supreme Court of India. The event was organized by an association called ‘Women in Law and Litigation (WILL)’. Hence the audience largely consisted of women lawyers. The theme of speeches at the event, predictably, was the advancement of women in law.
One piece of advice shared by Justice Singh with the audience, offended me, to say the least. She was talking about how women lawyers can manage careers along with families. She said that women lawyers can do it by ‘sacrificing their own time’. To be specific, she told them to ‘give up Bollywood movies, shopping and parlour time’. This reminded me of a video I had seen online. In the video, a radio show host was interviewing the American singer, Ariana Grande. He asked her what she would pick if she could use either her phone or make-up for the last time. Ariana snapped back saying:
“Is this what you think women have trouble choosing between?”
Why Advice Given By Hon’ble Justice Pratibha Singh Offends
You will find this video if you only Google ‘Ariana + sexist question’. Justice Singh’s advice to women lawyers was as sexist, if not more. Given her own journey, she would know that a woman who sets out to make it big, has many other difficult choices to make. Leisure and vanity are usually at the very end of that list.
Maybe she knows women who cannot find time for the profession because they are busy watching movies. Or because they are prepping themselves up at beauty parlours. But what makes J. Pratibha Singh generalize and dole this advice out to a gathering of women lawyers? In fact, this advice formed the headline of the article reporting her speech. She herself may not have realised that her words would thus be painting all women lawyers in the country with the same brush. And in the process, demeaning and undermining them.
Why Advice Given By Hon’ble Justice Pratibha Singh Disappoints
I also found contradiction and denial in parts of her speech. She said the following:
“Always keep a domestic help. Always keep drivers. Because then you can work in the car as well. Don’t have a sacrificing attitude. Take children with you while briefing senior counsels, and make them do their homework. This is what I did during my tenure.”
I agree with Justice Singh in that women should not have a sacrificing attitude. Yet her first mantra for women lawyers was ‘sacrificing their own time’! I would have instead hoped for her to have asked women to demand more contribution from their partners at home. To not think of childcare as only their duty.
Also, I do not think she realises that what worked for her may not be a solution for everyone. Not every woman’s children are cooperative enough to sit outside as she attends a meeting. Nor is every woman able to afford a car, driver and domestic help. Again I would have preferred Justice Pratibha Singh to mention changes needed in the existing systems to assist all kinds of women. To talk about facilities that the Delhi High Court is or will be providing to lawyers who are parents.
Is J. Pratibha Singh Speaking The Tones of Patriarchy?
To my disappointment, she put all the onus of breaking stereotypes on women, without asking for any share of the system. To me, Justice Singh seems to be coming from the place of a woman who made it big in a man’s world by working twice as hard as men. And she seems to be asking other women to do the same. She tells women lawyers to make a mark for themselves by essentially denying their humanity as well as equality. But this is what existing patriarchal systems anyway expect them to. Do they need a Justice Singh to tell them the same thing?
Even if Justice Pratibha Singh had to set herself up as an example to be followed, I would rather that she did not undermine other women’s struggles by telling them to quit watching movies! She was not addressing teenagers who struggle with choosing between watching MTV and studying for their exams.
Justice Hima Kohli’s Speech
Also reported was Justice Hima Kohli’s speech at the same event. She too advised women to beat the odds and not wait for opportunities to present themselves. She too mentioned how she started her career from the boot of her car as she did not have an office. But I was thankful to see that she did not deny or undermine the struggles of other women lawyers. She also spoke about her own task of making women lawyers ‘more comfortable’ in the profession. And about providing them with the help that even she or her peers did not receive.
Personally, I appreciate her approach much better. There’s hardly any doubt that she too may have worked very hard to reach her spot at the Supreme Court of India. But she does not simply tell other women to match her steps. Instead, she is offering a helping hand to them so that more and more of them can join the profession. That is what is needed from a person of her position.
My Take
There’s no denying that hard work, perseverance, and grit are needed to be put in by every person who wants to excel. Be it a man or woman. But it’s unfair for people in positions of power to, on one hand, acknowledge that the going is tougher for women, and on the other, ask women to suck it up and find their own ways out. What they are saying in effect is that when some women have conquered the odds so far on their own, there is no need for other women to now have a level playing field with men. Women should be content with the fact that they are ‘getting to work’!
I do not agree with them. Working women is an accepted reality in society now. It’s time now for the next stage in the revolution. It’s time now that the system covers the extra mile that a woman has so far been asked to walk to reach the goalpost. Hybrid court hearings, creches which may be used by all parents (men and women), easier court attires, gender sensitization of judges- these are only a few steps in the right direction.
Very aptly pointed out the fallacy with the ill-advice. She is doing what she is required to do, “judging”, but unfortunately she should avoid it outside the courtroom as this is exposing her limitations. It may sound extreme but this sexist judgement also deserves some strict censure/ clear message from the supreme one – like the one received by another lady of her fraternity today.