Court practice, unlike firm practice, does not offer a predictable ladder. While addressing the 16th convocation of Gujarat National Law University, the chief justice of India, Surya Kant, underscored this issue and expressed concern at the growing preference for corporate law over litigation. For women, the dilemma increases manifold.
Litigation demands patience for briefs, recognition and income. The economics are unforgiving. It is no secret that the early years of litigation practice are poorly compensated, structurally unstable, and heavily dependent on relationships and networks. These uncertainties are compounded for women burdened by entrenched family responsibilities and societal expectations.
This is not to say that the profession has not come a long way in terms of the sex ratio among practising lawyers. The progress is real but so is the persistence of disparity. As of 2025, women constituted 15% of practising lawyers in India, only around 13% of the high court judges, and less than 9% of the Supreme Court judges. A survey by the Supreme Court Bar Association in 2025 revealed that 33.1% of female advocates still face gender bias indicating scepticism about their competence.
Such a perception is not accidental but institutional. The data revealed that 57.8% of the women lack equal access to leadership roles. The mandatory 30% reservation in State Bar Councils and 33% reservation in the Supreme Court Bar Association may have secured a seat at the table but women are still rarely seen occupying decision-making roles like president of the Bar Associations or chairman of the Bar Councils.
The absence of substantive leadership inevitably manifests in deeper vulnerabilities. While over half of the women face issues with access and discrimination, what remains underreported are the unspoken compromises around work-life stress, the quiet exclusion from decision-making processes, and the harassment that never reaches the complaint mechanism. One of the significant repercussions is a lack of sensitivity towards issues raised by women which results in the oppression of voices. In a profession shaped by hierarchy and reputation, silence becomes a survival strategy.
Female advocates are seldom encouraged. The SCBA survey reported that 38.5% of women find litigation to be discouraging as a profession. In 2024, the Supreme Court designated only 21 female lawyers out of 93 as senior advocates. The same year, the Bombay High Court conferred the designation on two women out of 13 advocates. Since its establishment, the Orissa High Court has conferred the senior designation on only three women advocates.
The disparity can be addressed by structural interventions.
Mandatory appointment of women advocates on government panels, state counsel and legal services authorities supported by a uniform policy for minimum allocation of briefs would promote participation and retention. Women in independent practice might benefit from statutorily fixed minimum advocate’s fee structures, structured mentorship programmes, and mid-career training. Additionally, recognition through designation, appointments or elevation would encourage female advocates.
However, the implementation of such initiatives would be meaningless unless equal access is not brokered in leadership roles within Advocates’ Associations and State Bar Councils.