JUSTICE P.B. SURESH KUMAR - THE JUDGE WHO UNDERSTANDS

(By Aswini Sankar R.S., Advocate, High Court of Kerala)

On this occasion marking Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar’s retirement, let me share some personal memories.

First, as a nervous junior lawyer with a week of practice experience at bar, I stood before his Lordship, with shivering and shaking voice, hands and legs, seeking an adjournment in a civil appeal’s admission. Lordship asked, “Why don’t you argue?” Upon our compulsion and I started, with feeble voice, stammering through the little I knew, I cannot recall what I argued or even the facts of the case, but I remember his lordship’s expression vividly: serious, focused, with his cheek resting on his hand, resembling the expressions of my Mom who listen carefully to my kindergarten (LKG) adventures.

After I completed my facts and law, I paused, he smiled gently and asked,

“What do you want now?”

Though I never expect, that question, I genuinely replied,

“My Lord, the appeal may be allowed.”

You raised eyebrow slightly, “At this admission stage?”

I without hesitation but with tension said,

“Then, then…. the appeal may be admitted, My Lord.”

The entire courtroom burst into laughter, all except two; his Lordship and myself.

After cross checking to the files, his lordship kindly, dictated: “Admit. Issue notice. Stay further proceedings.”

The second incident happened years ago, in the chamber of my senior, a genius in law, Mr. K. Ramkumar. The team was preparing feverishly for a matter listed in the Miscellaneous Court. We were cross-checking a bunch of case law printouts, chronologically arranged, labelled, and highlighted to clarify a tricky legal point.

Suddenly, our clerk, Rajeevan Chettan, came to the senior’s chamber and informed us that the judge was on leave, and the matter would be taken up by Justice PBS instead. My senior immediately said, “Don’t waste Justice Suresh’s time. One telling judgment is enough—he’ll understand.”

And that’s true, you did understand.

The third incident happened during a difficult time when tensions rose between the Bar and the Press. A classmate of mine, a fellow lawyer, was injured during that unrest. The very next day, His Lordship along with some others came to the Bar Association Hall to meet the Bar. He walked up to my friend, placed your hand on his shoulder, and asked gently,

“Are you okay?”

After a month, in open court, while taking the petition list of his lordship miscellaneous jurisdiction, at 4:15 p.m., (a notorious list then, among the advocates, for shortage of time for which no one can be blamed though) while my friend, asking for a stay extension in his matter, you asked him again,

 “Are you okay?”

That gesture spoke volumes.  

Yes, what my senior said is absolutely true, Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar, easily and genuinely understands the law. Not only the law but the facts, the emotions and the Bar.

Even though in my personal statistics, I got more dismissals and rejections from his court, but never once did I feel unheard or disrespected as a lawyer. Lordship, we thank you! We will miss you personally, and we also miss a judge like you in the Bench too.  

Professional Dignity in the Digital Age :
A Call to the Next Generation of Advocates

(By Kuriakose George Thekkel, Chief Manager (Law), State Bank of India)
E-mail :kgthekkel@gmail.com           Mob.: 9895106460

 “The Bar is not a private guild, nor is the Bench a cloistered conclave. It is a public institution serving the nation. Its conduct must elevate, not erode, public faith.”   -- Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer

“The strength of the judiciary lies not in might or numbers, but in the reverence with which it is viewed by those who appear before it.”       -- Justice H.R. Khanna

“A profession whose members regard it as a duty to uphold its dignity is one that commands the confidence of the people.”          -- Justice Vivian Bose

Abstract

The legal profession — once steeped in oral tradition, deference to decorum, and an almost sacrosanct reverence for the courtroom — now navigates a rapidly shifting terrain shaped by the pervasive influence of digital media. The recent incident in Kerala, where a newly enrolled advocate released an Instagram reel featuring the official car of a sitting High Court Judge, has sparked a necessary national conversation on the evolving boundaries of professional conduct in the legal fraternity. The Kerala Bar Council’s issuance of a show-cause notice to the young advocate is not merely a disciplinary response — it is indicative of a broader, jurisprudential inflection point.

This moment reflects not only on rules but on the deeper values that underpin our vocation. I am reminded of a seemingly small, yet profoundly instructive episode from my own initial days of practice. I was once standing at the back of a courtroom, casually conversing with another young lawyer — my back turned inadvertently to the Bench. A hand gently fell on my shoulder. I turned to find an unfamiliar senior advocate smiling at me. In a calm but firm tone, he said, “Son, never ever stand in court with your back turned to the Bench. It’s a matter of respect, not just decorum.” I did not know who he was at the time. Days later, I learned that the man offering that quiet counsel was none other than the illustrious K.P.Dandapani, a doyen of the Bar and a name that commands enduring respect in Kerala’s legal circles.That moment has remained etched in my consciousness. It spoke volumes about the culture of respect, restraint, and invisible discipline that defines the legal profession.

It is apprehended that this culture is now in tension with a generation reared in the immediacy of likes, views, and virality. The dissonance is not generational per se—it is cultural. It reflects a lacuna in the professional conditioning of young advocates, who must be taught not only the law but the ethos of lawyering. The standards of dignity, silence, and reverence for the institution are not ornamental traditions—they are the sine qua non of legal integrity.

The reel in question depicted visuals of a High Court Judge’s official vehicle, prominently displaying the Indian Tricolour, the Ashoka Chakra, and the nameplate reading “Judge, High Court of Kerala.” While the intent may have been celebratory, the symbolism and its misappropriation carry grave implications. The Bar Council deemed the video not merely inappropriate but actively “malicious and mischievous,” further holding that it constituted a form of unprofessional solicitation and affront to judicial dignity.

Under the Advocates Act, 1961, conduct unbecoming of the legal profession can attract disciplinary proceedings, including suspension or removal from the Bar. The statute vests the Bar Council and its disciplinary committees with the authority to preserve the integrity of the profession by adjudicating on issues of misconduct. In this context, the symbolic misuse of judicial insignia—particularly in a public and promotional digital medium—risks eroding public confidence in the sanctity of judicial institutions and the independence of the legal profession.

The legal profession is rooted in time-honoured values—dignity, confidentiality, restraint, and fidelity to institutional norms. In contrast, the architecture of social media is designed to amplify the self, to prioritize visibility over virtue, and immediacy over deliberation. These platforms are not inherently inimical to legal professionalism, but their use by members of the Bar—particularly new entrants—requires a heightened sense of prudence and ethical literacy.In the words of Justice Vivian Bose, one of India’s earliest Supreme Court judges, “A profession whose members regard it as a duty to uphold its dignity is one that commands the confidence of the people.” That confidence is what is at stake when professional conduct in the legal community is trivialized—even inadvertently—in the name of modern expression.

The challenge is not merely behavioural but structural. Young lawyers entering the profession in the digital era often possess impressive technological fluency but limited exposure to the nuanced moral infrastructure that underpins legal practice. In an environment where professional image is curated as much online as it is in court, the parameters of acceptable conduct must be both reaffirmed and rearticulated.

A major factor contributing to these lapses is the systemic inadequacy of professional ethics training in Indian legal education. Most law schools devote disproportionate attention to doctrinal subjects at the expense of cultivating a deep-seated understanding of professional comportment. This pedagogical imbalance produces graduates who are proficient in black-letter law but underprepared for the ethical dilemmas of real-world practice—especially those emerging in the context of digital communications.

Topics such as the ethical use of social media, digital client confidentiality, and online representations of professional status remain conspicuously absent from most curricula. As a result, law graduates often enter the profession with only a superficial awareness of the codes of conduct expected of them, exposing them—and by extension, the profession—to reputational risk.It must be taught that alawyer’s duty to his client, to the court and to the cause of justice transcends jurisdictional borders and must now extend to cyberspace, where impressions are formed, careers are shaped, and public trust is either cemented or corroded.

In an era where digital self-expression intersects uncomfortably with the imperatives of professionalism, every post, video, or image shared by a legal practitioner must undergo a fundamental threshold test: Would this content uphold the dignity of the legal profession if viewed by a judge, a senior member of the Bar, or a client? This is not merely a rhetorical device—it is a necessary filter in a profession where credibility, restraint, and perception carry enduring consequences. The act of posting content online is no longer a private indulgence; it is a public act with profound consequences on one’s profession.

Caution must be exercised when engaging with symbols of judicial authority. Reproducing or referencing court insignia, judicial vehicles, or other institutional emblems in non-official contexts trivializes their constitutional significance. These are not to be treated as props or aesthetic enhancements—they are emblematic of the rule of law and the constitutional framework within which we operate. To repurpose them for casual or personal media is not only inappropriate but also erodes the symbolic distance that must exist between the practitioner and the institution.

A clear demarcation must be maintained between personal expression and professional identity. While individuality and authenticity have their place in the digital space, they cannot come at the expense of institutional credibility. The intermingling of personal gratification with professional representation—often manifesting in content that is performative or self-promotional—invites both ethical scrutiny and potential regulatory sanction. The legal profession has always demanded a degree of self-effacement; in the digital age, that demand has only grown more complex.

There is also a pressing need to reinforce awareness around Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which explicitly prohibits any form of advertisement or solicitation by advocates. Many digital actions, even those cloaked in subtlety or indirect suggestion, risk violating the spirit if not the letter of this rule. Therefore, integrity, not undesirable visibility, must remain the currency of professional success.

If one chooses to maintain a presence in the digital domain, its orientation must be educational, not self-centric. The true utility of online platforms lies in their capacity to foster public legal awareness and contribute to a broader understanding of constitutionalism, justice, and rights. Thought leadership, nuanced commentary on legal developments, and responsible advocacy for the rule of law not only elevate the individual’s stature but also reinforce the profession’s public mission. In this, there is ample room for innovation—but it must be anchored in humility and public service.

Senior members of the Bar, by virtue of their experience and stature, bear an amplified responsibility. Their role is not merely to mentor on procedural efficiency or courtroom craft, but to act as custodians of professional culture. They must steer the new entrants in the right direction. Justice H.R. Khanna, a beacon of judicial integrity, once said, “The strength of the judiciary lies not in might or numbers, but in the reverence with which it is viewed by those who appear before it.” That reverence is shaped in equal measure by what happens inside courtrooms and what is carried outside—into the world, both physical and digital.

Parallelly, the onus also lies on law schools to treat digital ethics and professional comportment not as cursory modules but as core pillars of legal education. The traditional focus on legal theory and black-letter law must be complemented by a transformative pedagogy in ethics—one that engages students with real-world dilemmas and cultivates a deep sense of judgment. The ability to navigate the grey zones of digital expression with discretion and integrity is now as critical as mastering statutory interpretation.

One must never lose sight of the long-term consequences that even momentary lapses in our conduct can produce. Professional misconduct in the digital age is often not a private fall from grace—it is a public unravelling. Reputational damage, once inflicted, is rarely reversible. In a profession built almost entirely on credibility, trust, and perception, the margin for error is narrow and often unforgiving. Each indiscretion weakens not just the individual’s standing, but the collective image of the Bar in the eyes of the public.

The legal profession stands at an inflection point. The digital age offers unprecedented opportunities for legal engagement, civic education, and public discourse. But these same opportunities demand commensurate responsibility. The standards of professional conduct must extend with equal force into virtual spaces. The dignity of the legal profession—rooted in constitutional ideals and societal trust—cannot be diluted by the imperatives of digital virality.

One can only hope, perhaps even whisper a wish into the void, that the Bar Council—stern guardian of our noble profession—will temper its justice with wisdom, as it confronts the tender inexperience of this fledgling entrant. Let us pray that the winds of this misfortunate event do not sweep the young advocate into their cruel spiral. And yet, amid this uncertainty, let us cast a blessing into the future: may he, in time, become a lawyer of rare mettle, honour-bound to the truths of justice, and deeply attuned to the callings of a society that aches for integrity.

Doctrine of Level Playing Field

N. Ajith, Advocate, High Court of Kerala
E-mail : najithmenon@gmail.com       Mob: 9847304930

Introduction

The doctrine of the level playing field is a foundational principle in law, economics, and public policy, aimed at ensuring fairness and equality of opportunity among participants in a competitive environment. While the term is often used metaphorically, its implications are farreaching, influencing government policy, business practices, and international economic relations.

Meaning and Origin

The phrase "level playing field" originates from sports, where a sloping field would unfairly advantage one team over another. In its broader application, the doctrine refers to a situation in which all participants are subject to the same rules and standards, ensuring that no competitor has an undue advantage due to external factors. It is not about guaranteeing equal outcomes, but rather about providing equal opportunities by enforcing consistent rules for all.

Legal and Constitutional Basis

In India, the doctrine of the level playing field is closely linked to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The courts have recognized that this right includes the expectation that the state will not create policies or conditions that give an unfair advantage to one competitor over another. The doctrine is also intertwined with Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, and Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.

The doctrine of 'level playing field' is an important doctrine which is embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Decisions or acts which result in unequal and discriminatory treatment, would violate the doctrine of 'level playing field' embodied in Article 19(1)(g).

Application in Government Contracts and Regulation

The doctrine is particularly significant in the context of government contracts and public procurement. It mandates that all eligible competitors must be given an equal opportunity to participate, and that the criteria for selection should not be so onerous or tailored as to favor a particular party. This ensures that public resources are allocated efficiently and fairly, and that the public interest is served by promoting healthy competition.

In practice, this means that government policies, tenders, and regulations should:

• Avoid arbitrary or discriminatory eligibility criteria
• Ensure transparency in processes
• Apply the same standards and rules to all participants
• Provide legal certainty and consistency in decision-making
• International Economic Law and Trade

On the global stage, the doctrine of the level playing field is a key principle in international economic law. It underpins efforts to prevent unfair competition arising from divergent regulations, subsidies, or state interventions. However, international law recognizes that absolute regulatory uniformity is neither practical nor necessary. Instead, the focus is on establishing minimum standards, such as labor rights, environmental protections, and anti-subsidy rules, that all participants must meet to prevent distortions in competition.

For example, trade agreements may require parties to adhere to a set number of International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions or environmental agreements as a baseline for fair competition. Regulatory divergences are tolerated as long as they do not create significant competitive imbalances or undermine agreed-upon international norms.

Principles of Justice and Fairness

The doctrine of the level playing field is closely related to broader principles of justice and fairness. It embodies the idea of formal equality of opportunity, where all individuals or entities have the same chance to succeed, provided they abide by the same rules. This is distinct from equality of outcome, which seeks to equalize results regardless of input or effort.

The doctrine interacts with other principles such as:

Equity : Rewarding individuals based on their input or merit

Equality : Distributing benefits and burdens equally

Need : Allocating resources based on individual needs

Balancing these principles is often complex, as strict adherence to one may conflict with the others. The level playing field doctrine seeks to strike a balance by ensuring that rules do not inherently favor or disadvantage any participant, while still allowing for merit-based differentiation and support for those with greater needs.

Limitations and Challenges

While the doctrine aims to promote fairness, it is not without limitations:

Regulatory Burden: Uniform rules may disproportionately impact smaller or less-resourced participants, inadvertently favoring larger entities that can better absorb compliance costs.“Public Interest: The doctrine is subject to overriding public interest considerations, such as national security, public health, or social welfare.“Dynamic Standards: In international contexts, defining the "floor" and "ceiling" for acceptable regulatory divergence is complex and often contested.

Conclusion

The doctrine of the level playing field is a cornerstone of fair competition in law, business, and international relations. It ensures that all participants operate under the same set of rules, thereby promoting efficiency, innovation, and public trust. While challenges remain in its implementation, especially in balancing competing principles and adapting to evolving standards, the doctrine remains essential for upholding the ideals of justice, equality, and the rule of law.

NEEDED, ENDING NOT MENDING

K. Ramakumar, Senior Advocate, High Court of Kerala
E-mail : ramakumarassociates@gmail.com             Ph.0484-2376428

An American president-elect asked about the formation of his cabinet replied, “I will seek those who do not seek them.” A meritorious lawyer growing eminent on his own does not need to seek recognition from any quarters. It will come after him if he is equipped, experienced, and above all, has unimpeachable character.

This country has a glorious tradition of always respecting gurus (teachers), parents (matha-pitha), and elders. Does any one of them implore that they be respected? Likewise, respect and recognition as a senior in the Bar belong to those who do not seek them. The honour should seek them and not vice versa. This is what the High Court of Orissa said in Banshidhar Baug v. Orissa High Court (AIR 2021 NOC 735),on who should be designated:

“(I) He is an Advocate with towering personality. He is suave and gentle. His disposition towards the Court and his fellow counsels is impressive. He is known for his ready wit. Ask him any question on any law, he has an answer with reasonings. His standing in the Bar is remarkable. He is a social factor in the society, he lives. He is humble, dignified, kind and a person with sobriety. He would however not come to stand in a queue to file an application for being designated as "Senior Advocate". Such a person being an asset to the profession, suomotu power should be reserved to be exercised for such a person only and such power should be given to the High Courts, as in our understanding, such power has not been given to the High Courts in the guidelines/norms framed in Indira Jaising case.

(II) Designation of "Senior Advocate" is a coveted position from the point of view of the Bar and the society. There should not be crowd in such a coveted position. Every Tom, Dick & Harry should not be brought to this position by whatever means permissible. Certain percentage of the total strength of a particular Bar should only be allowed to enter into this coveted position.”

Ironically, in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi (2025 INSC 667), the Supreme Court was constrained to reconsider the parameters for designation of senior advocates, as one senior advocate was found involved in malpractices for which he apologised ‘in at least half a dozen cases’.

It may be pointed out that several leading counsel pointed out before the Supreme Court in Jitender @ Kalla(supra)that designation must be by conferment and not by application. This was accepted by the Supreme Court in the following words:

“It is not out of place to observe that subjecting an Advocate having standing at the Bar to interview by three senior-most Judges and two senior members of the Bar violates the dignity of the noble profession.”

How then can the system of applying for seniority be sustained on any moral, ethical or other standards followed by a noble profession? Most of the leading counsel who addressed arguments in Jitender @ Kalla(supra)put forward the view that only the really eligible shall be designated. See what the Supreme Court said:

“Even the members of the Bar owe a duty to ensure that only deserving Advocates get designation, and therefore, their suggestions must be given importance in the process of framing rules.”

The Solicitor General lamented before the Supreme Court that canvassing and lobbying could not be stopped. On character, this is what the Court said:

“No one can dispute that an advocate who lacks integrity or does not possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to designation.”

The Court, however, pointed out that there is no method to assess character, honesty and integrity. This is what the Court said:

“No specific points have been assigned for the character, honesty and integrity. The point-based assessment, as can be seen from the earlier discussion, can hardly be objective, and it tends to be highly subjective.”

The legislature never contemplated an advocate making applications seeking designation.  Sub-section 2 of Section 16 of the Advocates Act indicates that designation has to be conferred by the Supreme Court or the High Courts. This means that, hereafter, the practice of seeking self-designation has become totally unsupportable in law and therefore void and inoperative. The Supreme Court had also said that Section 16(2) does not empower any High Court in framing rules for the designation of seniors.

“As can be seen from sub-section (2) of Section 16, prima facie, the scheme of the provision is that no advocate can seek designation, but the privilege of designation has to be conferred by this Court or High Courts with his consent. In paragraph 2 of Indira Jaising-II [(2023) 8 SCC 1], this Court held that designation as a senior advocate in India is a privilege awarded as a mark of excellence to advocates who have distinguished themselves and have made a significant contribution to the development of the legal profession. Therefore, the question that needs serious consideration is whether the Court should permit applications to be made for grant of designation, though the statute does not contemplate that. If the legislature intended to allow advocates to make applications for designation, sub-section (2) of Section 16 would not have provided for this Court or High Courts to take the consent of advocates before designation.”

This means what? All the designations so far made by the High Courts after the promulgation of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 stand annulled, without authority andnon est in the eyes of the law.

A senior in the bar is looked upon as a role model for the younger section. By reason of his capacity, credibility and trustworthiness, a lawyer gains recognition as a senior. This cannot be begged or canvassed or be given on favour dispensation or favour seeking. Please see what the Supreme Court said:

“The sole yardstick by which we propose to introduce a set of guidelines to govern the matter is the need for maximum objectivity in the process so as to ensure that it is only and only the most deserving and the very best who would be bestowed the honour and dignity. The credentials of every advocate who seeks to be designated as a Senior Advocate or whom the Full Court suomotu decides to confer the honour must be subject to an utmost strict process of scrutiny leaving no scope for any doubt or dissatisfaction in the matter.”

Ultimately, the Court found that the act never contemplated making an application at all.This is what the Court said:

“On plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 16, the Legislature never contemplated an Advocate making an application seeking designation. The scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 indicates that designation has to be conferred by the Supreme Court or the High Courts. The scheme of sub-section (2) of Section 16 indicates that an individual Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be, cannot recommend any Advocate for designation as the decision is a collective decision of the Full Court. Even if an Advocate deserving of a designation does not apply for designation, on the basis of the discussion in the house, the Full Court can always recommend his/her designation, subject to his/her consent. For that purpose, the recommendation in writing of an individual Judge is not warranted.”

The long and short of the discussions in the Bar and the declaration of law made by the Supreme Court leaves no one in doubt that the highest court does not approve lawyers worth the name applying for seniority, a distinction which should go in search of them rather than them running after it. The Supreme Court felt that new rules must be framed. Until then, what happens? In my respectful submission, all the designations so far made are apparently invalid in law and contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act.

The system undoubtedly needs mending. But the best method of mending is to end it all together.

The Uneven Scales : The Struggles of Women in Litigation and the Urgent Call for Reform

(By Akhil Ben, Advocate, Trivandrum)
E-mail : akhilben854@gmail.com                   Mob.: 6282315526

The legal profession has long prided itself on being the guardian of justice, the upholder of rights and the beacon of hope for the marginalized. Yet, ironically, within it’s own corridors, particularly in litigation, it continues to nurture and perpetuate a culture that routinely sidelines, undervalues and endangers one of it’s own : the women lawyers.

Every year, countless young women enter litigation brimming with hope, armed with legal knowledge and idealism to contribute meaningfully to the justice system. However, the harsh realities of court practice soon expose them to a professional environment marred by gender discrimination, subtle hostility and disturbingly often, overt misconduct. The court corridors, which should symbolize justice and equity, have instead become spaces where women litigators must constantly guard their dignity and safety.

The harrasment women face in these spaces is not always dramatic or visible. It often hides behind patronizing comments, dismissive attitudes, or in the way male counterparts and even seniors address or sideline them. Instances of stalking, unwelcome advances, and casual misogyny are disturbingly frequent. Many young women advocates recount being followed within court premises, being subject to unsolicited remarks, or being propositioned by seniors who should have been their mentors. In a profession that requires immense mental focus and confidence, such predatory behaviour chips away at a woman lawyer’s sense of security and professional worth.

Adding to this is the profession’s notoriously unforgiving schedule. The long hours spent waiting for cases to be called out, the unpredictability of court work, and the expectation to be constantly available disproportionately affect women, particularly in a society where domestic responsibilities are still largely seen as a woman’s duty. This imbalance forces many competent women advocates to either leave litigation altogether or settle for roles with less visibility and growth.

Even within law offices, the discrimination persists. Women are often relegated to desk work — drafting, procedural filings, or attending hearings only to seek adjournments— while their male counterparts are handed important briefs and opportunities to argue cases, build client relations, and develop a courtroom presence. The unspoken assumption that women are less efficient, less assertive, or less resilient in the adversarial courtroom environment deprives many brilliant women litigators of the chance to build the same networks and reputations as their male peers.

Yet, despite these formidable barriers, there are women who have not only survived but flourished in litigation. Senior advocates like Indira Jaising, Leila Seth, and others have carved spaces for themselves in this male-dominated profession through sheer resilience and brilliance. However, the numbers of such women remain discouragingly low in comparison to their male counterparts, largely because the system itself remains hostile to their presence.

What is urgently needed is systemic reform, beginning with court safety. Every court complex must establish fully functional, independent harassment redressal cells with stringent anti-harassment mechanisms, capable of acting swiftly and impartially against misconduct. A zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, stalking, and verbal abuse must be implemented rigorously, with exemplary consequences for offenders, irrespective of their seniority or standing.

Court management bodies must also actively work towards creating a culture of respect and equality. Gender-sensitization programs for members of the Bar, Bench, and court staff should not be treated as token exercises but as ongoing, essential engagements. Special committees with female advocates and Judges should be established to monitor the environment of court premises and suggest reforms periodically.

Furthermore, deliberate efforts should be made within law offices to provide equal opportunities for women. Firms and senior advocates must introspectively assess whether their briefing patterns, courtroom assignments, and mentorship opportunities reflect a gender bias and actively work to correct it. Bar Associations should incentivize inclusive practices and penalize discriminatory ones.

Creating safer, more progressive litigation spaces for women is not just about addressing harassment. It’s about acknowledging and dismantling the institutionalized misogyny that continues to persist in this profession. It is about ensuring that women advocates are not just survivors in litigation but equal stakeholders in the shaping of the legal landscape.

A progressive legal system demands a progressive Bar — one that genuinely embodies the ideals it claims to uphold. While the road ahead remains challenging, it is heartening to remember that change is already in motion. Trivandrum’s own women advocates like Late.Adv.Celine Wilfred and Adv. Gayathri Sreekumar have, against formidable odds, carved their rightful place in the profession. Their grit, intellect, and unwavering commitment to the cause of justice have left lasting impact on the Trivandrum Bar, inspiring newer generations of women lawyers to persist and thrive.

Ensuring safety, dignity, and equal opportunity for women in litigation is not a favour or a progressive concession — it is a long overdue necessity. But if the profession acknowledges its past failures and commits sincerely to reform, it can create a future where women are not mere survivors in litigation, but respected leaders, mentors, and equal architects of the legal landscape. The legal fraternity must now choose to be the profession it was always meant to be — one where justice begins at home.