Where Only Merit Is To Be Considered, Gender Is Irrelevant: Justice Rumapal

"Where only merit is to be considered, gender is irrelevant. Where the criteria is mere tokenism or political correctness or to correct the perspective in the minds of the public that women are equal to men, only then gender is relevant", Justice Ruma Pal articulated the true meaning of feminism on Friday.

The former Supreme Court judge was delivering the keynote address at a function organized by Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaint Committee, Supreme Court of India, in relation to Women's day.

Elaborating on the pitfalls that latch on to the phenomenon of a woman singled out for attention, she mentioned the 'Queen bee syndrome', where the concerned woman is accused of not appointing other women in positions of power because (supposedly) she enjoys the exclusive limelight. In this light, Justice Pal weighed in that mental competence should be the governing parameter in the appointment of judges-

"If a woman is found to be equally competent as the man, only then should she be given preference over her male counterpart. Otherwise, not only will there be injustice to the court and, by extension, the litigant public, but also to the woman who is reduced to a mere gender in the process"

"Equally women, cannot use their gender unfairly to their advantage, When women know themselves to be incompetent, then they must not play the gender card to get appointed. If merit alone is the criteria, then gender is irrelevant, except as a rule of preference...This rule must also not to be understood as a 'quota', for that would lead to merit less tokenism, and the resultant exclusion of women of competence on account of the 'quota' having been 'filled'...", she reflected.

Recounting her own share of experiences as a woman in the law and her trysts with discrimination, she narrated how the Principal at the University Law College had refused to let her sit in class (as she was the only female student) and asked her to take the exams privately- "I was appalled and angry and insisted on attending lectures! Finally, I allowed to sit separately at a table next to the lecturer"

"As a post-grad student at Oxford, I was not only the only woman among 19 students, but also the only non-white. No one was willing to partner with me during the tutorials. Now of course this attitude could be attributed to my race or even my sex. Or a combination of both...A South African co-student at Oxford, who was also a good friend, had told me that I could at best be a law reporter..."

Justice Pal recited her travails in securing an employment- how, after being turned away from several solicitor's firms for no disclosed reason, a senior partner at Orr Dignam & Co. told her that it was against their policy to appoint women as "they are not serious and they get married and leave soon".

She recited an anecdote from her time at the office of ex-Solicitor General of India Dipankar P. Gupta- "He, being a traditionalist, didn't even look at me for 3-4 months as I sat dutifully and hopefully at his table. Then one day, I said to him that I have to earn a living! After that, he was careful to see that I was briefed as a junior in a few cases"

"A family friend, who was a lawyer at the Calcutta High Court and subsequently also a judge, used to say that the law is too dirty a profession for women. And that my voice is too soft. He was of the opinion that men can tackle the dirty problems but women are pure and simple minded...We are not! As for my voice, no lawyer who ever appeared before me would agree with that!"

Justice Pal spoke about the time when a City Civil Court judge in Calcutta had called her in his chamber shortly after she had won a case before him- "He told me that he had thought I am an Anglo-Indian because no Bengali girl from a good family would join the law!"

As to how a woman should behave in court, she canvassed the unwritten code of conduct that a lady advocate wishing to prove her mettle is expected to follow- "How a woman should behave in court depends on how she wants to be perceived. If she wants to be known for her mental competence, then she will not dress up or do anything else to attract attention to her gender. She must make such concessions to her gender!"

"Women in the law face prejudice, at the end of client, regarding their understanding of complex issues, and their ability to hold their own against the men...there is the stigma of underestimation on the part of the male colleagues- a very senior lawyer had once asked me if I had actually prepared the particular brief or had it prepared for me!...then there is the undermining and the devaluation, again at the instance of your male contemporaries- if you won a case, they would say that it is because the judge was kind to you as you are a woman!"

On the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace, Justice Pal observed that the notions of gender and those of the mind and the body must not be confused with each other- "Every time a woman feels denigrated, she should ask herself if the denigration is of my body or my mind because of my body- if the answer is in the affirmative, then it is sexual harassment. Otherwise not"

She even remarked that where a male lawyer has a female junior, the relationship must not unnecessarily be viewed as having sexual undertones.