Based on a talk by the author, the article seeks to sketch the work and contribution of Professor Lotika Sarkar, the first woman law teacher of the Delhi University. A much sought after teacher, with a progressive outlook, Professor Sarkar mentored several generations of law scholars, teachers and judges. The article speaks of Professor Sarkar’s seminal contribution as member of the Committee on the Status of Women in India. Her chapter on ‘women and the law’ formed a significant part of the Committee’s 1975 report. Professor Sarkar joined three other eminent law teachers in penning an Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India, on September 16, 1979, in the wake of the Tukaram case. This letter paved the way for significant changes in law relating to custodial rape. The issues that Professor Sarkar worked on are of contemporary relevance to any serious legal scholar looking for a reference point, and the right questions to ask.
AgarwalB. (1988). Who sows? Who reaps? Women and land rights in India. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 15(4), 531–581.
2.
AgarwalB. (1995). A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge University Press.
3.
AgarwalB. (2017). Does group farming empower rural women? Lessons from India’s experiments. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(4), 841–872.
4.
AkerkarS. (1995). Theory and practice of women’s movement in India: A discourse analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 30(17), 2–23.
5.
AustinG. (1999). Working a democratic constitution: The Indian experience (pp. 293–388). Oxford University Press.
6.
BastenJ. (2015). Judicial education on ‘gender awareness’ in Australia. International Journal of Legal Profession, 22(2), 151–165.
7.
BaxiU. (1982). The crisis of the Indian legal system. Vikas Publications.
8.
BaxiU. (2014). Unlearning the law with Lotika Sarkar. Journal of the Campus Law Centre, 2(6).
9.
BaxiP. (2016). Çarceral feminism as judicial bias: The discontents around State vs. Mahmood Farooqui. Interdisciplinary Law, (3). https://www.academia.edu/29104002/_Carceral_Feminism_as_Judicial_Bias_The_Discontents_around_State_v._Mahmood_Farooqui
10.
BaxiU., DhagamwarV., KelkarR., & SarkarL. (1979). An open letter to the Chief Justice of India. Supreme Court Cases, 4, 17–22.
11.
BhaskarA. (2016). Elitist judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajbala v. State of Haryana: Damage to democracy. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(40). https://www.epw.in/journal/2016/40/special-articles/damage-democracy.html
12.
BhatiaG. (2017). Equal moral membership: Naz foundation and the re-fashioning of equality under a transformative constitution. Indian Law Review, 1(2), 115–144.
13.
Committee on Status of Women in India. (1974). Towards equality. Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of India. https://pldindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Towards-Equality-1974-Part-1.pdf
14.
DesaiA., & MuralidharS. (2000). Public interest litigation: Potential and problems. In KirpalV. N. (Eds.), Supreme but not infallible: Essays in honour of the Supreme Court of India (pp. 159–192). Oxford University Press.
15.
DouglasH., BartlettF., LukerT., & HunterR. (2014). Reflections on rewriting the law. In DouglasH., BartlettF., LukerT., & HunterR. (Eds.), Australian feminist judgments: Righting and rewriting law (pp. 1–17). Hart Publishers.
16.
Du ToitL. (2007). The conditions of consent. In HunterR. & CowanS. (Eds.), Choice and consent: Feminist engagements with law and subjectivity. Routledge-Cavendish.
17.
HaksarN. (1999). Human rights lawyering: A feminist perspective. In DhandaA. & ParasharA. (Eds.), Engendering law: Essays in honour of Lotika Sarkar (pp. 71–88). Eastern Book Company.
18.
HunterR. (2010). An account of feminist judging. In HunterR., McGlynnC., & RackleyE. (Eds.), Feminist judgments: From theory to practice. Hart Publishing.
19.
KumarR. (2018). The history of doing: An illustrated account of movements for women’s rights and feminism in India, 1800–1990. Zubaan Publishers.
20.
MajuryD. (2006). Introducing the women’s court of Canada. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 18(1), 1–12.
21.
MandalS., & SenR. (2015). Indian feminisms, law reform and the law commission of India: Special issue in honour of Lotika Sarkar. Indian Journal of Law and Society, 6(12), 11–37.
22.
ManiL. (1987). Contentious traditions: The debate on Sati in Colonial India. Cultural Critique. 7, 119–156.
23.
MazumdarV. (1999). Political ideology of women’s movement’s engagement with law. In DhandaA. & ParasharA. (Eds.), Engendering law: Essays in honour of Lotika Sarkar (pp. 339–374). Eastern Book Company.
24.
MazumdarV., & CWDS Family. (1999). For Lotikadi. In DhandaA. & ParasharA. (Eds.), Engendering law: Essays in honour of Lotika Sarkar. Eastern Book Company.
25.
MazumdarV., & SarkarL. (1999). Note of dissent. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 6(1), 134–137.
26.
MuralidharS. (1999). The case of the Agra protective home. In DhandaA. & ParasharA. (Eds.), Engendering law: Essays in honour of Lotika Sarkar (pp. 295–320). Eastern Book Company.
27.
NayarL. (2019, March4). Why female participation in the workforce is on the decline in India?Outlook India. https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/why-female-participation-in-workforce-is-on-the-decline-in-india/301207.
28.
PrasannaA. K. (2015, December10). The Supreme Court just delivered a deadly blow to the idea of universal adult franchise. The Wire. https://thewire.in/law/time-for-indias-poor-to-say-farewell-to-universal-adult-franchise
RoyA., & MKSS Collective. (2018). The RTI story: Power to the people. Roli Books.
31.
RukminiS. (2019, June). India’s workforce is masculinising rapidly. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-s-workforce-is-masculinising-rapidly-1560150389726.html
32.
SainathP. (1996). Everybody loves a good drought: Stories from India’s poorest districts. Penguin Books.
33.
SainathP. (2018, June23). A long march of the dispossessed to Delhi. The Wire. https://thewire.in/agriculture/a-long-march-of-the-dispossessed-to-delhi
34.
Samya Shakti (1985). From the committee on the status of women in India to the end of the women’s decade: Some personal reflections [Editorial]. Samya Shakti, 2(1), 80–91.
35.
SarkarL. (1962). The proper law of crime in international law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 11(2), 446–470.
36.
SarkarL. (1976). Law and the status of women in India. Columbia Human Rights Law Journal, 8(95), 95–121.
37.
SarkarL. (1976). Jawaharlal Nehru and the Hindu Code Bill. In NandaB. R. (Ed.), Indian women: From purdah to modernity (pp. 87–98). Vikas Publishing House.
38.
SarkarL. (1985). Women and the law. Annual Survey of Indian Law, 21, 493–500.
39.
SarkarL. (1986). Constitutional guarantees: The unequal sex. Centre for Women’s Development Studies.
40.
SarkarL. (1987). Women and the law. Annual Survey of Indian Law, 23, 239–244.
41.
SarkarL. (1988). National specialised agencies and women’s equality: Law commission of India. Centre for Women’s Development Studies.
42.
SarkarL. (1994). Rape: A human rights versus patriarchal interpretation. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 1(1), 69–92.
43.
SarkarL. (1995). Women’s movement in the legal process. Centre for Women’s Development Studies.
44.
SarkarL. (1996). Women and law. Legal News and Views, 10(3).
45.
SarkarL. (1997). Women and the law. Annual Survey of Indian Law, 23–24, 659–662.
46.
SarkarL. (2002). Secularism, religion and minority representation: Constituent assembly debates. In SarkarL., SharmaK., & KasturiL. (Eds.), Between tradition, counter tradition and heresy: Contributions in honour of Vina Mazumdar (pp. 313–320). Centre for Women’s Development Studies.
47.
SarkarT. (2008). Wicked widows: Law and faith in nineteenth-century public sphere debates. In GhoshA. (Ed.), Behind the veil: Resistance, women and the everyday in colonial South Asia. Palgrave Macmillan.
SatishM. (2017, October). The Farooqui judgment’s interpretation of consent ignores decades of rape-law reform and catastrophically affects rape adjudication. Caravan. https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/farooqui-judgment-consent-ignores-rape-law-reform-catastrophically-affects-adjudication
50.
TaraboutG. (2018). Ruling on rituals: Courts of law and religious practices in contemporary Hinduism. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, 17, 1–20.
51.
ThompsonM. (2017). Doing feminist judgments. In EnrightM., McCandlessJ., & O’DonoghueA. (Eds.), Northern/Irish feminist judgments: Judges’ troubles and the gendered politics of identity (pp. 49–74). Hart Publishers.
52.
VasishtL. (2017, October). The terms of consent: On the Farooqui verdict. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-terms-of-consent/article19797667.ece
53.
Wire Staff. (2019, April5). How many women candidates will contest in 2019?The Wire. https://thewire.in/women/women-candidates-parliament.
