'Only One Woman Judge In Supreme Court Is A Disgrace': Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan On Gender Bias

This segment explores the persistent gender imbalance within India's legal profession and the higher judiciary, moving beyond statistics to examine the cultural and institutional biases that continue to shape opportunity. Beginning with a light-hearted anecdote about a statue gifted by his wife, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan transitions into a candid discussion on how deeply ingrained perceptions influence both professional advancement and everyday decision-making.

The conversation examines the idea of unconscious bias, with both Sanya Talwar and Gopal Sankaranarayanan openly acknowledging that stereotypes often operate instinctively, even among those who consciously believe in equality. Rather than treating bias as a problem limited to institutions, the discussion highlights how these assumptions are internalised by society at large, influencing everything from briefing patterns within the Bar to perceptions of competence and leadership.

A significant part of the discussion focuses on the representation of women in the Supreme Court and the broader judicial appointments process. Gopal Sankaranarayanan challenges the frequently advanced argument that the shortage of women judges is a consequence of an insufficient pool of meritorious candidates. He argues that this is a false dichotomy, maintaining that India has no shortage of exceptionally capable women judges and senior advocates. According to him, the real issue lies not in merit but in institutional willingness and the choices made during appointments.

The conversation also grapples with the often-debated tension between merit and representation. Instead of framing gender diversity as a compromise on excellence, it argues that the two are not mutually exclusive. The discussion suggests that merit has too often been invoked selectively, while existing systems have overlooked deserving women despite making similar exceptions in other contexts.

Ultimately, this is not merely a conversation about women in law; it is a broader reflection on fairness, institutional accountability, and the responsibility of the legal profession to confront its own assumptions. By combining personal anecdotes with systemic critique, the discussion encourages viewers to reconsider long-held beliefs about merit, leadership and representation, while arguing that meaningful reform begins with recognising the biases that often remain invisible.