The lawyers cited examples, from even the Supreme Court, where judges used word or phrases that the handbook looks to do away with.
Published Aug 16, 2023 | 11:38 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 16, 2023 | 11:38 PM
The Supreme Court of India. (Creative Commons)
Lawyers of the Supreme Court lawyers have welcomed the release of a handbook that seeks to curb the usage of gender stereotypes about women in court orders, judgements and legal proceedings — as well as replacing them with more appropriate and dignified words.
Welcoming the release of the handbook, senior advocate and the former Patna High Court judge Anjana Prakash said, “The handbook exposes the latent biases of educated persons — importantly, judges — who are believed to think above the ordinary.”
“This surely is empowering and a welcome step,” she told South First.
She also said, “The book seeks to correct sensibilities and perspectives to an ideal where a woman is viewed without the useless baggage of stereotypes — the suicidal stone around her neck.”
Noting that some judges may use these gender stereotypes about women “inadvertently”, she stated that at some point, these gender stereotypes — even if used inadvertently — had to be corrected.
Describing it as a “very welcome step” that “unfortunately came late” but “better late than never”, senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal noted, “We see judgements where all kinds of adjectives are used about women.”
Stating that a judge in the first instance should be a gentleman, Jaiswal told South First: “We expect that the grooming of a Supreme Court judge is such that he is a gentleman first.” She said that all other things come later.
Jaiswal referred to an instance where a former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Markandey Katju, had described a mistress as a “keep” in one of his judgements, which led to a storm the next day.
She cited another instance, where a senior but now-deceased advocate, appearing for a self-styled Godman, painted the complainant woman in dim light.
“If this was the language of judges and senior advocates of the higher judiciary, what will be its impact on the judges of the subordinate judiciary and the advocates as well? What message goes to the lower courts and the lawyers?” she asked.
Referring to instances in the Supreme Court itself, Jaiswal said that unless there was a change in the mindset, sensitivity in the description of women would not come. “Unless the mindset of men changes, these things (change in gender stereotypes about women) can’t be imposed,” she said.
Stating that the release of the handbook was “definitely a step in the right direction and a measure that was long overdue”, senior advocate Sunil Joseph Mathews said: “The need for such a measure is premised on the aspect that common stereotypical words and phrases used about women are routinely found in judgements of the Indian courts.”
Sunil said he hopes: “As a consequence of the handbook released by the Supreme Court, words such as ‘eve-teasing’, ‘prostitute’, and ‘housewife’ may soon be out of the legal lexicon and will be replaced by terms like ‘street sexual harassment’, ‘sex worker’, and ‘homemaker’.
He added: “Other commonly-used expressions of a negative import, such as ‘mistress’, will now be a ‘woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage’. The word ‘bastard’ would be replaced by the expressions ‘non-marital child’ or ‘child whose parents were not married’.”
Mathew said that the objective of this latest initiative by the Supreme Court was to equip judges and the legal community with the “tools to identify, understand, and reject stereotypes, it is aimed to pave the way for a more inclusive, impartial, and gender-just legal system”.
The need for such a handbook and the objective behind such a measure, said Sunil, was best summed up in the handbook itself, where it was stated: “Even when the use of stereotypes does not alter the outcome of a case, stereotypical language may reinforce ideas contrary to our constitutional ethos.”
The handbook has also said: “Language is critical to the life of the law. Words are the vehicle through which the values of the law are communicated. Words transmit the ultimate intention of the lawmaker or the judge to the nation.”
Here are some of the changes the Supreme Court has suggested in its handbook:
