By Animesh Shukla and Aarati Sah,
Advocates at Supreme Court of India
The recently published survey reports of the Supreme Court Bar Association (hereinafter to be referred as SCBA) regarding the condition of women legal professionals in India present a deeply concerning picture of the legal profession. While the statistics themselves are alarming, the reality experienced by countless women across courts, chambers, offices, institutions and workplaces may be even more serious than what surveys are capable of capturing.
The survey findings released in 2025 and 2026 indicate that a substantial number of women lawyers believe that their professional journey has been more difficult than that of their male counterparts. Significant percentages of respondents (women who form the part of sample piece) reported gender bias, unequal treatment, work-life imbalance, lack of mentorship, barriers in leadership opportunities, burnout, and even sexual harassment within professional environments. Equally concerning is the fact that many respondents expressed lack of confidence in institutional grievance redressal mechanisms. (Source: Indian Express and LiveLaw report regarding SCBA survey). These findings are not isolated statistics; they represent an institutional reality which many women professionals silently endure.
At the same time, one must also recognize an uncomfortable but important aspect of such studies: surveys often reveal only the visible portion of the problem. A large number of women may never participate in such surveys due to fear of backlash, social stigma, professional isolation, reputational damage, or loss of future opportunities. Even among those who participate, many may hesitate to disclose the full extent of harassment or discrimination they have faced.
Several publicly discussed incidents in recent years have further raised serious concerns regarding institutional accountability and protection of women professionals. For instance, a woman judicial officer from Banda district in Uttar Pradesh had publicly written to the then Chief Justice of India in 2024 alleging repeated sexual harassment by fellow judicial officers. The incident briefly attracted national attention before gradually disappearing from mainstream public discourse. Similarly, in another widely discussed incident in Delhi during 2025, a young woman from Odisha allegedly searching for employment became the subject matter of a sensational criminal investigation. However, with the passage of time, public attention faded and larger questions regarding accountability, fairness of investigation, and identification of actual perpetrators also disappeared from national debate. Such incidents often deepen public concerns that institutional pressures, influence, or bureaucratic biases may sometimes overshadow truth and justice.
The issue cannot be confined merely to litigation or the legal profession. Similar concerns have repeatedly emerged from almost every sphere of public life — politics, bureaucracy, corporate institutions, academia, entertainment industries, media organizations, and even judicial institutions. The persistence of such allegations across sectors suggests that the problem is not individual but structural. It is rooted in unequal power relations, institutional silence, economic dependency, and social conditioning that normalizes inappropriate conduct while discouraging resistance.
One of the most dangerous aspects of this structural inequality is the existence of what is often described as the “glass ceiling.” The glass ceiling is not simply about denial of promotions or formal opportunities. It operates invisibly through selective mentorship, informal lobbying, networking barriers, gatekeeping by influential individuals, and unequal access to institutional power structures. In many situations, the public visibility of a few highly successful women is projected as evidence that equality has already been achieved. However, symbolic success of a few individuals cannot erase the struggles faced daily by thousands of women attempting to survive within deeply hierarchical systems.
The harsh practical reality acknowledged privately by many professionals is that merit alone often does not determine opportunities. Influence, political connections, financial background, family networks, institutional patronage, and personal equations frequently play decisive roles. In several workplaces, there exists a widespread perception that professional advancement is not always governed purely by merit or competence, but also by power dynamics, favoritism, lobbying, and at times exploitative expectations. This adversely affects deserving women professionals while simultaneously damaging opportunities for economically weaker and first-generation male candidates who also lack institutional backing. Yesterday, an assistant professor form Lucknow University got arrest by the Police for allegedly asking sexual favour from a female student in exchange of question papers.
Particularly disturbing is the normalization of silence. Many women who resist harassment or refuse compromise reportedly fear professional exclusion, character assassination, social targeting, or loss of career prospects. This fear weakens institutional accountability and discourages reporting. Consequently, official complaint statistics may never accurately reflect the magnitude of the problem. The absence of complaints should therefore never be misunderstood as absence of misconduct.
At the same time, the problem cannot be resolved merely through periodic surveys, symbolic discussions, or social media campaigns. Real institutional reform requires moral accountability, transparent mechanisms, independent grievance redressal systems, strict protection for whistleblowers and victims, and above all a professional culture where dignity is valued above influence and hierarchy. Ironically, public discourse on gender justice sometimes itself becomes selective and performative, where individuals publicly advocating equality may privately perpetuate the same exploitative structures they claim to oppose. Such contradictions further weaken public confidence in institutional sincerity.
Despite these challenges, the surveys also reveal an inspiring reality: women continue to enter the legal profession in large numbers, including first-generation professionals without inherited legal backgrounds. Their persistence demonstrates extraordinary resilience and faith in constitutional ideals. However, resilience alone cannot substitute institutional reform.
The SCBA survey should therefore be seen not as the conclusion of a conversation, but as the beginning of a more honest national introspection about dignity, merit, power, institutional accountability, and justice in modern India.
Linked In of Aarati Sah: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aarati-sah-advocate-00a686201
Linked In of Animesh Shukla : https://www.linkedin.com/in/animeshshuklalaw