A forgotten battle.

A HUNDRED years ago, the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act, 1923, was passed in British India, with a preamble that read: 'An Act for the removal of doubts regarding the right of women to be enrolled and to practise as legal practitioners.' The tortuous wording may seem strange. Yet, it was necessary. The legislature was not taking any chances, not with the dubious jurisprudence emanating from the high courts of India at that time. In a valorous effort to refuse to read the clear text of the law, the esteemed judges had held that women were, in fact, not persons - at least not in a 'conclusive' manner.

In 1868, the General Clauses Act was passed, providing that words denoting the masculine gender also included females. Eleven years later, the Legal Practitioners Act laid out the rules and procedures for enrolling qualified 'persons' into the legal profession. Since the General Clauses Act predated the Legal Practitioners Act, there was the added presumption that when crafting new legislation, the legislature is aware of all existing laws and circumstances. Reading these two acts together, no other interpretation seemed possible. Women were included in men, and even if not, surely they were persons?

Right?

Wrong. As the first generation of women who fought for their right to practice law discovered, the road to equality was fraught with obstacles.

As the first generation of women who fought for their right to practise law discovered, the road to equality was fraught with obstacles.

The first among these was Cornelia Sorabji - the first female graduate from Bombay University and the first woman to study law at Oxford. Advocating for women's rights to practise law in India, she argued for the necessity of female lawyers to represent women in purdah, who faced restricted access to legal counsel. In 1897, she cleared the LL.B examination, which should have allowed her to enrol as a vakil. Vakils were indigenously trained lawyers who were considered a rank lower than barrister in the colonial legal hierarchy.

However, due to the lack of precedent, Cornelia's application for enrolment as a vakil was denied. The then chief justice of the Bombay high court had reportedly said that a woman should not have anything to do with the law. A similar outcome resulted from her application to the Allahabad high court which was split on granting her the right to practise. But with the chief justice's casting vote, they decided it would be 'impertinent for an...