At a time when questions around constitutional values, institutional balance, and civil liberties dominate public discourse, senior advocate Indira Jaising’s new book, The Constitution Is My Home: Conversations on a Life in Law, was launched with a candid and sharply political conversation on the state of the republic.
During the book launch, in a discussion with senior journalist Sreenivasan Jain, Jaising framed her lifelong engagement with the Constitution not as professional duty but as identity. “In this country, the first question everyone asks is ‘Where are you from?’ I found the answer. I belong to the Constitution of India,” she said, describing the document as a deeply personal “home”.
But the metaphor of belonging was accompanied by a stark warning. Jaising argued that all governments, regardless of which party they belong to, have tried to shake the foundation of the Constitution, tracing the first major rupture to the Emergency.
Today, she said, the threat persists, though in a more complex form. Unlike the Emergency, where constitutional provisions were explicitly invoked to curtail freedoms, the present moment is marked by a transformation without changing the written text.
Responding to Jain’s question on her claim of a shift toward a majoritarian state, Jaising said the change is harder to confront precisely because it is informal.
“We have gone past the temporary stage,” she remarked, resisting comparisons with an “undeclared emergency” and instead pointing to a deeper, structural shift.
Jaising also turned to the language of the Constitution itself, noting that the word Hindu appears only once and in a very progressive context tied to opening places of worship to all sections. The emphasis, she suggested, was on inclusivity rather than identity politics.
On gender justice, her assessment was mixed. While landmark rulings like Vishakha Guidelines established protections against workplace sexual harassment, she pointed to a persistent contradiction. “We seem to be very concerned about a woman after she’s dead but not in her lifetime,” she said, critiquing societal and legal responses that doubt women seeking protection.
The role of the judiciary drew both criticism and cautious optimism. Jaising described recent instances of the Supreme Court revisiting its own reasoning such as in the Umar Khalid bail case as extraordinary and worth celebrating. Yet she stressed the need for discipline of law within the court and a stronger, more assertive bar.
“It is only a strong bar which can keep a judiciary in check,” she said, lamenting the absence of a militant voice.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who spoke at the launch, echoed the central metaphor of the book. Calling the Constitution a place of belonging, shelter, and source of identity, she said the idea of making it one’s home reflects a profound relationship with its ideals. She also underscored the importance of free expression under Article 19 and the need for diverse perspectives in a democracy.
Reflecting on women in the legal profession, Justice Nagarathna traced a generational journey from fighting for entry to demanding recognition and now reclaiming leadership. She emphasised mentorship, solidarity, and the need for institutional change driven by persistence rather than rupture.
Together, the conversation and speeches framed the book not just as a memoir, but as an intervention part personal reflection, part constitutional critique at a moment when, as Jaising put it, “we live in hope, but also in the present moment.”