"Why Didn't You Study In Law School Instead Of This?" : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Abolition of "Male" Pronouns In Constitution

The Supreme Court on Tuesday witnessed sharp condemnation of "abuse of process" through frivolous Public Interest Litigations (PIL) when a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha criticised a petitioner seeking to abolish "male" pronouns in constitutional provisions.

The petitioner in question was a law student appearing in person. He argued that the use of "male" pronouns in constitutional provisions amounted to gender discrimination and violated fundamental rights. However, CJI Chandrachud wasted no time in expressing his disapproval. He questioned the petitioner, "Why didn't you study in law school instead of coming up here with such PILs?"

The Chief Justice then questioned the feasibility of abolishing constitutional provisions containing gender-specific language, highlighting that newer provisions had already moved towards gender-neutral terms, such as "chairperson." To this, the petitioner argued–

"This is violation of equality...people understand that a chairman means a man..."

However, the CJI was not convinced and pointedly asked the petitioner whether replacing "chairman" with "chairperson" meant that a woman would not be eligible for the position. CJI Chandrachud asked–

"You'll abolish constitutional provisions now? Newer provisions do mention "chairperson". If older provisions mention "chairman", would a woman not be appointed then? What fundamental right is this violating? Dismissed."

The bench stated that costs would have been imposed in the matter had the petitioner not been a law student.