Derogatory Terms That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Must Not Be Used In Pleadings: Delhi HC Recommends Use Of Supreme Court’s Handbook

The Delhi High Court has said that derogatory terms that perpetuate gender stereotypes and undermine the dignity and rights of individuals based on their gender should not be used in pleadings.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ launched by the Supreme Court recently may be used while drafting pleadings as well as the orders and judgments.

“By actively challenging and discarding gender stereotypes in their language, actions, and interactions, legal fraternity can contribute to dismantling entrenched and hidden biases that have persisted in our society for far too long. This necessitates avoiding the use of derogatory terms that perpetuate stereotypes and undermine the dignity and rights of individuals based on their gender,” the court said.

It added that it is incumbent upon the legal community to “champion a culture of gender sensitivity” and embrace the values of fairness and respect in both professional conduct as well as the legal documents.

“The adversarial nature of our criminal legal system can sometimes lead one of the parties to employ strong language in an attempt to advance their interests. Lawyers are entitled to present their clients' cases to the best of their abilities while maintaining fairness. However, this does not justify the use of offensive, abusive, disrespectful, derogatory, and misogynistic language in pursuit of this goal,” the court said.

Justice Sharma also said that while strong language may be necessary at times in legal pleadings to further the cause of justice, it must not cross the line into offensiveness and should always be in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The pleadings should, as far as possible, maintain a dignified tone, the court said.

The court made the observations while dealing with a woman’s plea challenging a trial court order granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of raping her on false pretext of marriage.

While the court refused to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused, it took serious objections to the language and derogatory terms used by him against the woman in his counter affidavit.

The accused had stated that the woman by her “extremely wicked or villainous designs” and “seductive” acts made him to propose her for the marriage, that “he was shocked to know that she was not a virgin and was a divorcee”, that “he always wanted to marry a simple virgin girl and never wanted to marry a divorcee but the woman was a cunning person who had emotionally blackmailed him” and that “she is not even divorced till date.”

Condemning the use of such language, Justice Sharma said that use of inappropriate and derogatory language which undermines the dignity of individuals, based on their gender, falls beyond the permissible bounds of language expected in legal pleadings.

“The use of infelicitous language transgressing on the character of the woman and to state that her marital status made her lesser than a person or a woman and the marital status of the man in question entitled him to a virgin woman and an unmarried person could not have had sexual relationship with a woman already married was not only derogatory but affront to the principles of equality, dignity and respect,” the court observed.

Advocates Tarun Gupta and Anmol Mishra appeared for the petitioner.

APP Manoj Pant appeared for State.

Senior Advocate Nonu S. Khera, alongwith Advocate Mohd. Ahsan Khanji appeared for the accused.

Title: RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883

Click Here To Read Order