Women in Law: From “Thinkers” to “Winkers”

By Vanshika 

Why Justice Katju’s Remark Reflects a Deeper Problem in India’s Judiciary

The Remark That Sparked Outrage

On August 20, 2025, Katju posted on X (formerly Twitter) that “all the lady lawyers who winked at me in Court got favourable orders.” The backlash was immediate, with critics calling out the sexist undertone and trivialisation of women professionals. Though deleted, the statement left a mark—it reduced women lawyers from skilled professionals to objects of humour and preys of sexualisation. 

From Thinkers to Winkers

What makes the comment dangerous is not its crudeness, but its reinforcement of a toxic stereotype: women’s successes are tied to charm, not competence. For women lawyers, this is part of a double bind.

• Win a case, and whispers question how it was achieved.
• Lose a case, and stereotypes about women’s inadequacy are reinforced.

In either situation, women must fight harder to be seen as equals, while men’s legitimacy is rarely questioned.

Beyond the Joke: The Patriarchal Gaze

Feminist scholars remind us that jokes are rarely harmless. As Sara Ahmed argues, humour often masks exclusion while legitimising power hierarchies. Katju’s remark exemplifies this: cloaked as humour, it reasserts male authority and reduces women’s intellectual contributions. It reveals a persistent “patriarchal gaze” that sees women less as thinkers, more as performers.

The Numbers Behind the Inequality

The deeper problem is systemic underrepresentation.

• In 75 years of the Supreme Court, only 11 women judges have ever been appointed.
• As of 2025, only 2 of 33 sitting judges are women.
• India has never had a woman Chief Justice. Justice B.V. Nagarathna is expected to be the first in 2027—though for just 36 days.

At the High Court level, women remain nearly invisible. This lack of representation means patriarchal attitudes persist unchallenged at the highest levels.

“Equal Plus”: The Burden Women Bear

Justice Leila Seth, India’s first woman High Court Chief Justice, famously observed that women in law must be “equal plus” to be taken seriously. Katju’s joke is a sharp reminder of this burden. Even after years of hard work, women are vulnerable to being trivialised as “winkers” instead of respected as thinkers.

The Damage Beyond Apology

Katju apologised, but words carry weight. When authority figures trivialise women, it legitimises suspicion about women’s merit and fuels a culture of disbelief. The damage is not personal but cultural—it shapes how future judges, lawyers, and clients perceive women in law.

Conclusion: Justice Beyond Blindness

Katju’s comment is more than a careless joke—it is a symptom of a deeper problem in the judiciary. If the most powerful voices dismiss women’s contributions, how can the system promise fairness to all? Justice may be blind, but it cannot afford to be deaf to the concerns of half its citizens. Women lawyers are not winning cases with winks—they are doing so with intellect, perseverance, and grit. The system must finally start seeing them as such.