Indira Jaising | @IJaising

Indira Jaising

Indira Jaising is a noted human rights lawyer and a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Along with her husband and fellow Supreme Court senior advocate Anand Grover, Jaising founded the Lawyers’ Collective, a legal NGO that has been working since its inception in 1980 for the rights of the marginalised, particularly women, LGBTQ peoples, sex workers, and many more economically and socially disadvantaged groups. Jaising has fought and won a number of landmark legal battles, particularly those dealing with Christian women’s right to inherit property, right of the mother as the natural gurdian in child custody cases, or having the Supreme Court strike down instant Triple Talaq as unconstitutional. Starting from the rights of pavement dwellers in the 1980s Bombay, to enshrining collective rights over environment in the famous Goa Foundation case, to fighting for justice and compensation for the victims and survivors of the Bhopal Gas disaster in December 1984, Jaising has traced a long and eventful journey and made her mark as an outspoken and intrepid legal interventionist, who is not afraid to call the spade a spade. Jaising’s role was pioneering in forming landmark laws against domestic violence, against sexual harassment at workplace, among other legal interventions. She took upon herself to fight against corruption within judiciary when she exposed Justice Ramaswamy in 1989, or represented an ADJ alleging sexual harassment against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge. Jaising also won significant cases representing victims alleging sexual harassment against powerful individuals such as former DGP of Punjab, KPS Gill. Jaising has fought tooth and nail demanding due process, as in the case of Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai who was disallowed by the Government of India to travel to London and depose before a British parliamentary committee against a UK-registered coal mining company in 2015, when Jaising successfully defended a citizen’s freedom of expression. It is in this context that Jaising’s keen interest in ensuring the indpependence of judiciary, one of the three pillars of democracy, must be seen. Hers is a distinct and discerning voice that must be heard to make sense of these troubling times.



Ban on e-Cigarettes indicts tobacco industry for promoting cancer

The ban is historic because the tobacco industry has been in denial mode that tobacco causes cancer and poses a threat to public health.

September 20,2019


Amarendra Sharan was not a cynic after all, writes Indira Jaising

Senior Supreme Court advocate Indira Jaising fondly remembers former Additional Solicitor General Amarendra Sharan who passed away on August 12 after a heart attack. He was 69.

August 13,2019

Constitutional Law

Transformative Constitutionalism- A post-colonial experiment

The right to free speech is now an endangered species of rights

July 22,2019


 On Liberal Constitutionalism

Speech delivered at Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University on May 4, 2019

May 16,2019

Lead Opinion

Chief Justice Sexual Harassment Allegation Controversy

Only total transparency will help the Supreme Court regain legitimacy

April 26,2019

Lead Opinion

Of whistleblowers and gag orders

Every journalist is under threat

April 16,2019

अर्धी दुनिया

भारताच्या सरन्यायाधिशांना आंतरराष्ट्रीय महिला दिनानिमित्त इंदिरा जयसिंग यांचे खुले पत्र

न्यायव्यवस्थेने जाणीव पूर्वक महिला विरोधी अपमानजनक भाषेचा वापर टाळावा

April 13,2019

Lead Opinion

The Rafale judgment is historic

It is our “Pentagon Papers” moment.

April 11,2019

Women's Day

Indira Jaising writes

The judiciary must consciously eliminate derogatory tendencies towards women in our (spoken and judicial) language

March 9,2019


Dismissal of court masters without inquiry is improper

The two court masters who have been dismissed had the protection of Article 311. The question that arises is, why was there no inquiry conducted and no charges framed against them before their services were terminated. Dismissal dispensing with inquiry itself is a serious matter, not only because it affects the rights of person concerned, but also because it deprives the general public of the right to know what was the misconduct committed by the public servant.

February 15,2019


#RafaleDeal: What would we call a Supreme Court judgment that's ‘not based on facts’?

But apart from the obvious implications of off-the-record “parallel negotiations” by the PMO, what does this mean for the Supreme Court judgment delivered on December 14, 2018, rejecting several petitions filed for a mandamus directing the CBI to lodge an FIR in relation to the deal? While the Court is entitled take a point of view on law which may be debatable, it is not at liberty to play fast and loose with the facts. We have a right to insist that court proceedings are not manipulated by the Government by presenting half-truths in sealed cover to the court.

February 9,2019

Lead Opinion

Contempt, the flavour of the season

When the truth is stated, it does not “scandalise” the court. If it is true that the Selection Committee HPC held on January 10, 2019 did not select M Nageswara Rao as the interim director, then   the question of “scandalising” the court may not arise. Moreover, the contempt application suggests that Prashant Bhushan has “scandalised” a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. It is true that Justice Sikri was a member of the Selection Committee, but while sitting on the Committee he was not performing a judicial function but an executive function of making a selection to a post.

February 6,2019

1 2 3 4
Scroll Up