It’s time to bid adieu to the antiquated archaisms that have long been entrenched in the corridors of justice. In a landmark move towards fostering gender equality and dismantling deep-seated stereotypes, the Supreme Court of India has taken a decisive step by taking a linguistic leap forward and releasing a handbook that aims to eliminate archaic and discriminatory language from its proceedings. Gone are the days when a ‘career woman’ or a ‘fallen woman’ conjured visions of melodramatic narratives, and a ‘faithful, dutiful or obedient wife’ sounded like an instruction manual for marital conformity.

The handbook suggests to simply use the term ‘woman’ in place of the abovementioned archaic and unjust terms. The legal fraternity must acknowledge that language has power, and the lexicon of law should be a reflection of societal progress rather than a stagnant pool of stereotypes. The Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes is hence a timely intervention, effectively brushing a linguistic mop on terms that have no place in today’s world. While some might argue that these terms are mere semantics, it’s essential to recognise that language shapes perceptions, beliefs and attitudes. Shakespearean English might charm literary enthusiasts, but it is not how we communicate today. Similarly, these genderunjust terms belong to a bygone era of thinking. By shedding light on words that perpetuate gender inequality, the apex court has set a precedent for a language evolution that mirrors the broader evolution of social norms.

Advertisement

One of the most significant transformations lies in the replacement of the term ‘eve-teasing’ with ‘street sexual harassment’. By using more accurate and comprehensive language, the court acknowledges the severity of such actions and sets a tone for a society where victims are heard, understood and given justice. This shift also sends a powerful message that trivialising and normalising such behaviour will not be tolerated.

The handbook also recommends referring to what is commonly termed as ‘forcible rape’ simply as ‘rape’. The term ‘forcible rape’ is undoubtedly redundant because rape, by its very nature, involves non-consensual sexual intercourse achieved through force, coercion or lack of consent. In most jurisdictions, the absence of consent is a crucial element in defining the crime of rape. Therefore, any sexual act that is non-consensual, regardless of the specific level of force involved, would fall under the category of rape. The handbook also suggests using the terms ‘menstrual products’ instead of ‘feminine hygiene products’.

This change reflects the growing need to normalise menstruation as a natural and regular bodily function in biologically female individuals. It aims to foster an environment where discussions surrounding menstruation are free from stigma and treated with the same respect and consideration as other aspects of human biology. The handbook also proposes to refer to an ‘unwed mother’ simply as ‘mother’.

This approach seeks to eliminate the social stigma associated with single motherhood and recognise the fundamental role of parenting regardless of marital status. By using the term ‘mother’ without the unnecessary qualifier, the handbook promotes a more inclusive and non-judgmental approach, emphasising the importance of supporting all mothers and their children irrespective of their marital circumstances. The inclusion of terms like ‘intersex’ instead of ‘hermaphrodite’ in the handbook demonstrates the court’s commitment to understanding and acknowledging diverse gender identities. In a country as culturally rich and diverse as India, recognising the existence and rights of intersex individuals is a critical step towards inclusivity.

The handbook further recommends using the term ‘transgender’ in place of ‘transsexual’, and ‘crossdresser’ instead of ‘transvestite’. This adjustment is aligned with the evolving understanding of gender diversity and inclusivity. ‘Transgender’ is a more accurate and respectful term that acknowledges an individual’s gender identity beyond their biological sex, while ‘crossdresser’ is a term that reflects a personal choice in clothing and presentation without implying any specific gender identity. These changes aim to create a language framework that respects and affirms the identities of individuals while promoting a more informed and compassionate dialogue around gender-related matters. By using appropriate language, the court is signalling a departure from harmful practices of mislabelling and ostracising marginalised communities. Initially, the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 made mention of individuals lacking financial means as ‘paupers’.

Acknowledging that language carries specific connotations about its subject and can either uphold or undermine the respect of such individuals, the law was modified. The term ‘pauper’ was substituted with the term ‘indigent’. This alteration to the law wasn’t solely driven by legal technicalities but was intended to acknowledge the inherent worth of the people it pertained to. Similarly, numerous words and phrases employed in legal discussions (both by legal practitioners and by judges) echo outdated notions intertwined with patriarchal nuances. “Even when the use of stereotypes does not alter the outcome of a case, stereotypical language may reinforce ideas contrary to our constitutional ethos. 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. However, the language a judge uses reflects not only their interpretation of the law, but their perception of society as well. Where the language of judicial discourse reflects antiquated or incorrect ideas about women, it inhibits the transformative project of the law and the Constitution of India, which seek to secure equal rights to all persons, irrespective of gender,” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has written in the foreword of the handbook.

The Court, hence, is acting as the ultimate ‘word police’, ridding its judgments and orders of gender-biased terms as if they were miscreants in the linguistic underworld. Additionally, the handbook includes tables that debunk various stereotypes and present the actual realities in those scenarios. For instance, the stereotype that “women are more nurturing and better suited to care for others” has been asked to be eliminated and dispelled. Instead, the handbook says,

“People of all genders are equally suited to the task of caring for others. Women are often socially conditioned to care for others from a young age. Many women are also forced to abandon their careers to care for children and the elderly.” In another instance, the handbook debunks the unjust perception that “women who are sexually assaulted or raped by men cry incessantly and are depressed or suicidal.

If a woman’s behaviour does not conform to this mould, she is lying about having been raped.” In reality, “Different people react differently to traumatic events. For example, the death of a parent may cause one person to cry publicly whereas another person in a similar situation may not exhibit any emotion in public. Similarly, a woman’s reaction to being sexually assaulted or raped by a man may vary based on her individual characteristics. There is no ‘correct’ or ‘appropriate’ way in which a survivor or victim behaves,” the handbook remarks.

As we bid farewell to the remnants of gender bias in legal jargon, we must remember that this initiative is not about political correctness run amok. It’s about embracing change, promoting equality and challenging the status quo. The Supreme Court’s witty foray into linguistic reform is a beacon of hope, a reminder that even institutions rooted in tradition can adapt and lead by example. The handbook is a step forward in building a legal framework that is reflective of the aspirations and realities of today’s India – a society that respects individual choices, challenges stereotypes and strives for true equality.

(The writer is a lawyer, and a journalist on the staff of The Statesman.)