Legal practice in India, as in most other countries, is a male dominated profession. In 1916, the Calcutta High Court, and in 1922, the Patna High Court had held that women otherwise qualified were not entitled to be enrolled as Vakil or Pleader. In the Patna High Court case, Ms. Hazra, the petitioner, secured a Law degree from Calcutta University. She was refused enrolment as a Pleader. She challenged this in the High Court of Patna. The Court ruled that the sections of the Legal Practitioner's Act referred to males and not females. Since 1973. no woman had ever been admitted to the roll of pleaders. To remove doubts about the eligibility of women to be enrolled and to practice as legal practitioners: the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act, XXIII of 1923, was enacted to expressly provide that no woman would by reason only of her sex disqualified from being admitted or enrolled as a legal practitioner or from practicing as such. The Allahabad High Court took the lead by enrolling Ms. Cornelia Sorabjee the first Indian lady Vakil of the Allahabad High Court on 24 August, 1921 by a decision of the English Committee of the court (as the Administrative Committee was then called), consisting of Chief Justice Sir Grim Wood Meers. Since then, although the number of women entering into the profession has increased gender bias still pervades the profession.

"______ no women by reason only of her sex be disqualified from being admitted or enrolled as a legal practitioner or from practicing as such." Which Fundamental Right in the Constitution of India relates to this provision of Legal Practitioners (Women) Act XXII?

Article 14

The correct answer is Option (1) → Article 14

The Fundamental Right in the Constitution of India that relates to the provision of the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act, XXIII of 1923, ensuring that no woman is disqualified from being admitted or enrolled as a legal practitioner on the basis of her sex, is Article 14.

Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, which directly corresponds to removing gender-based discrimination, such as in the case of women being denied entry into the legal profession.

Here’s why Article 16 is not the answer:

• Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity in public employment, focusing specifically on government jobs or positions under the state. It prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence in government employment.

• In contrast, the Legal Practitioners (Women) Act, XXIII of 1923 addresses a broader issue of gender-based discrimination in the legal profession itself, ensuring that women are not barred from enrollment or practice due to their sex. This falls under Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law in all general spheres, not just government employment.