For more than five decades, Indira Jaisingh Has been at the forefront of some of the country’s landmark legal battles over gender inequality, state violence and institutional indifference. in his memoir Constitution is my home (HarperCollins India), co-authored with feminist publisher Ritu Menon, combines the senior lawyer’s personal history with the story of a nation striving to uphold its constitutional ideals.
But this book is much more than an account of the professional journey of a legal expert. It is also a deeply personal account of growing up in a family displaced by Partition, revealing how her lifelong search for belonging shaped her understanding of identity and justice. In doing so, Jaisingh exposed the intimacy The relationship between the personal and the politicalLinking the story of a life in law with a nation that is still striving to realize the constitutional promises on which the Republic was founded. In an interview at her office in New Delhi, the octogenarian reflected on the many challenges facing the judiciary and why she believes the country must return to the Constitution again and again in moments of crisis. Edited excerpts:
Conversation with senior lawyer Indira Jaisingh
Question: What inspired you to write this memoir?
A: I was aware that no book could ever fully portray a life between two covers, and this made me initially hesitant about writing a memoir. At the same time, I found myself increasingly troubled by the loss of institutional memory within the legal profession. Cases were being decided without reference to earlier precedents on the same issues. This troubled me because I felt as if my memories of the court were slowly fading away.
What ultimately inspired me to write the memoir was that more and more young women started coming up to me and saying, “You are the reason I chose to study law.” I found it hard to understand because, as far as I’m concerned, I did what I did just because I enjoyed doing it. But his words made me realize the importance of keeping these experiences on record.
CJI calls upon High Court Collegium to consider women lawyers of Supreme Court for judgeship
Question: You call the Constitution your home. Do you believe the home is safe today, amid concerns that the Constitution is increasingly being weaponized?
A: Yes, we are seeing the weaponization of the Constitution. But this is why I consider the Constitution as my home. It is about reclaiming the space that belongs to citizens. The Constitution was not written for governments or ruling parties; It was written for the people. Now is the right time to reclaim the Constitution, abide by it and reside in it.
Q: You have written about your mother saying that she had to give up her agency and personal freedom after marriage. Do you still view marriage as a patriarchal institution?
A: I see this as an ongoing problem. we have recently seen dowry related deaths Of the so-called modern women – women married to modern families and modern husbands. There is hardly any doubt in my mind that marriage, in many ways, remains a form of exchange of property.
In this country, we respect women when they are dead, not when they are alive. I have seen countless cases where women approach the courts in search of justice, but all they get is allegations that they are misusing the law. How do you know she is abusing the law? Have you seen inside his house? The marital home is still considered ‘man’s palace’ and is Far from being a safe place for women. Women should have a violence free environment in their homes. It was this gap in the law that inspired me to envision a law like the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This law has, to a large extent, helped women achieve a greater sense of security within the home. But ultimately what is needed is a change in social attitudes. Patriarchy continues to shape our social institutions, and I don’t believe there has been any fundamental change in the way marriage is viewed in this country.
Question: Do you believe that patriarchal conditioning is influencing judicial thinking?
A: Yes, patriarchal thinking is certainly prevalent in the justice system. At the same time, I believe that such attitudes can be challenged through advocacy. There is also increasing recognition of the role of legal language in stereotyping women. During the tenure of former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, a legal terminology Published to guide judges against the use of inappropriate gendered terms in legal discourse. It’s an ongoing process, but at least it’s a recognition that the problem exists and needs to be addressed.
Q: You launched ‘The Lawyer’ magazine in the 1980s because you felt contempt powers were being used to silence criticism. How do you view the recent increase in contempt proceedings? Should such powers be reserved only for cases involving direct interference in the administration of justice?
A: Yes, I agree with your previous observation. The use of contempt powers may be appropriate where there is direct interference with the administration of justice. However, there are other laws, such as defamationWhich are sufficient to deal with unjustified attacks on individuals.
After all, the judiciary has to earn its reputation. It has to demonstrate not only its legality but also its validity. The most important thing is that he has to earn the trust of the public. contempt of court This is not the way to earn that trust.
Advocate Indira Jaisingh says, ‘We need a stronger and more unified bar that is ready to speak up when needed.’ | Photo Credit: RV Murthy
Question: Several recent oral remarks of the Supreme Court have sparked public debate. Do judges need to exercise more restraint in their court comments?
A: Judges are expected to question lawyers and test their arguments. It is an integral part of the judicial process. Problems arise when verbal comments reveal the judge’s unconscious biases. Those comments can become the subject of public debate and, in some cases, damage the reputation of the judiciary. Judges should be mindful of this, especially in the era of live-stream court proceedings.
CJI’s ‘Cockroach’ Comments and Explanations: Verbal Comments and Institutional Limits
I would also say that we need a stronger and more unified Bar that is willing to speak up when needed. I have rarely seen any collective voice, be it from the Supreme Court Bar Association or other lawyers’ bodies, intervening at crucial moments. Certainly there are individual voices, but they don’t always make a difference.
Q: You write about coming from a family of refugees from Pakistan during Partition, and how this left you with a feeling of “rootlessness.” At a time when political discussion increasingly focuses on demographic change and illegal immigration, how has your personal history shaped the way you think about citizenship, identity and belonging, especially in a subcontinent that still bears the scars of partition?
A: Yes, it has had a deep impact on my life. People often ask, ‘Where do you come from?’ If I say Maharashtra, they tell me I am not a Maharashtrian. My family came from Sindh, but there is no state named Sindh in India. So where do you find yourself, and how do you answer that question? These are questions that make you realize that identity cannot always be limited to geography. After all, there is something called the Constitution of India. I inherited my citizenship; I didn’t have to prove it. It came to me as a gift of freedom and ultimately led me to see the Constitution as my home.
Also, I find most of the political discussions around immigration extremely insulting. Borders may exist, but across them there are lasting relationships between people. That is why I find it difficult to accept the hostility that is often directed toward our neighbors. At the very least, we should try to build good relations with our neighbors before taking risks with the rest of the world.
Question: While the Constitution protects freedom of religion, how should courts approach cases where religious practices appear contrary to fundamental rights?
A: The struggle is irreparable. But the problem is the legacy of colonialism. In 1772, the British decided that Hindus would be governed by Hindu law, Muslims by Muslim law, and so on. There is no constitutional justification for continuing to organize individual laws in such silos. As a result, discriminatory practices persist in all personal laws. When they are ignored, you realize that the power of religion and other non-state actors can exceed the power of the Constitution. This is not acceptable.
Question: Do you think there is a conflict between constitutional morality and public morality, especially when it comes to religious practices?
A: I don’t think so. Today people shy away from using the word morality, leave alone constitutional morality. But morality has an important role in our life. When it comes to law, what other morality should we turn to besides the Constitution? I don’t even understand what public morality means. Your morals may be different from mine. Too often, public morality becomes a form of majoritarian morality, and this is something I refuse to accept. I find it difficult to understand how any government can argue before a court that constitutional morality should be abandoned. One would hope that governments would be the first to affirm that they are guided by constitutional morality and are committed to upholding it.
Q: You write about the worrying lack of transparency within the judiciary. Do you think the process of judicial appointments should be subject to widespread public scrutiny?
A: Yes, I think it will help people understand the judiciary better. The deliberations of the collegium should be made public so that citizens can understand the considerations that go into deciding who becomes a judge and who does not. Citizens also have the right to advocate for individuals whom they believe would make good judges. Fortunately, in May 2025, the Supreme Court published detailed criteria, including performance appraisal standards, for appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges on its website. That was a step in the right direction.
Question: Following the expansion of the sanctioned power of the Supreme Court, four high court chief justices and one woman senior lawyer have been appointed to the apex court. Do you see this as a missed opportunity?
A: At the time the Supreme Court Collegium made its recommendations, three women were serving as chief justices of high courts, and a fourth pair were about to join their ranks. Looking at this group of senior women judges, I was hopeful that more women would be elevated to the Supreme Court. However, not all vacancies have been filled, and I hope that future appointments will pay more attention to gender representation.
Question: You write about how the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration of your co-founded organization ‘Lawyers Collective’ was canceled after you opposed the bail pleas of some officials implicated in the Gujarat riots. What message would you give to young lawyers who feel disillusioned with the profession?
A: I have always felt that those proceedings were, unfortunately, linked to the sexual harassment complaint made by a staff member of the Supreme Court against the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and my speaking out about the way the case was handled. The loss suffered was not the loss of FCRA registration; It felt as if I was being attacked by an institution I had served all my life. However, what helped us through those difficult times was the fact that we were practicing professionals. This is the message I will give to young lawyers. The legal profession is a powerful and independent profession. Young lawyers have to recognize their strengths. As long as they remain independent and continue to work in the interests of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, they have nothing to fear.
aaratrika.bhaumik@thehindu.co.in
