Chonira Belliappa Muthamma, born on January 24, 1924, in Virajpet, Karnataka, was the first woman to clear the Indian Civil Services examinations, becoming the first Indian woman diplomat and the first woman to hold the rank of Ambassador. Born in the coffee-growing district of Kodagu, Muthamma's father was a forest officer who passed away when she was just nine years old. Raised by her mother, who was determined to provide her children with the best education despite financial constraints, Muthamma completed her schooling at St. Joseph's Girls' School in Madikeri. Later, she moved to Chennai to pursue her undergraduate degree at Women's Christian College and a Master of Arts in English Literature from Presidency College, Chennai.

Her academic career, however, was not without challenges. Despite performing admirably, Muthamma received abysmally low marks in her final exams. Nevertheless, her determination paid off when she topped the Foreign Service list, securing her place as the first woman to join the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) in 1949. Her journey into the IFS was not easy; during the UPSC interview, board members tried to persuade her to change her first preference to IFS. Even though she struggled in some areas academically, her perseverance and talent shone through.

Muthamma's entry into the IFS came with an unsettling condition—she was required to sign an undertaking agreeing that she might be forced to resign if she got married. This rule, which was entirely discriminatory, reflected the institutionalized gender biases against women in the Indian bureaucracy. In her essay collection, Slain by the System, Muthamma described the humiliation she felt, remarking that she faced an entrenched attitude of “vengefulness” from her male colleagues, who saw it as their duty to “keep women in their place.”

Muthamma’s career in the IFS was fraught with obstacles, as she was subjected to numerous prejudices not only by her Indian peers but also by her counterparts from other countries. Many ambassadors raised objections to sending a woman on diplomatic missions, citing various baseless reasons, such as the inappropriateness of a woman representing India in international forums. Muthamma’s first posting was in Paris, where she was confronted with sexism not only from Indian diplomats but also from her foreign colleagues, who were uncomfortable with a woman diplomat. Her assignments took her across the world, serving in Rangoon, London, and on the Pakistan and America Desks in New Delhi. However, despite her extensive experience and qualifications, she was overlooked for promotion to Grade I, which would have made her the highest-ranking officer in the IFS. This injustice served as the catalyst for her landmark legal battle.

The tipping point came in 1979 when Muthamma filed a petition challenging gender bias within the Indian Foreign Service. She contested the discriminatory rules of the Ministry of External Affairs, including Rule 8(2) of the IFS (Conduct & Discipline) Rules, 1961, which required female officers to obtain written permission from the government before marrying and allowed the government to terminate their service if domestic commitments interfered with their professional duties. Muthamma also challenged Rule 18(4), which stated that married women were not entitled to be appointed to the service. These rules blatantly violated Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Indian Constitution. Muthamma’s case against the government highlighted the pervasive gender discrimination that women faced in the Indian Foreign Service. The Supreme Court bench, led by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, declared that such discriminatory practices undermined the spirit of the Constitution. In a landmark judgment, the Court ruled that the gender-based discrimination against women in the IFS was unconstitutional. Justice Iyer’s observations reflected the deep-rooted prejudices that women like Muthamma faced. He remarked, “If a married man has a right, a married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing. This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our struggle for national freedom was also a battle against woman’s thraldom.”