No More Words Like 'Housewife', 'Hooker', 'Adulteress', 'Eve Teasing' In Court Language : Supreme Court Provides Alternatives for 'Gender Unjust' Terms
In its newly released 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes', the Supreme Court has identified a list of prejudicial terms that promote harmful gender stereotypes, particularly about women. In some cases, the court has advised against the use of such terms owing to the antiquated notions that they represent; and in others, suggested alternative words or phrases which may be used...
In its newly released 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes', the Supreme Court has identified a list of prejudicial terms that promote harmful gender stereotypes, particularly about women. In some cases, the court has advised against the use of such terms owing to the antiquated notions that they represent; and in others, suggested alternative words or phrases which may be used by lawyers while drafting pleadings and by judges and judicial officers while writing orders and judgments.
This is informed by the idea that language is not passive, but active in that it both reflects the societal perceptions of the user and has tremendous capacity to cause harm, if prejudicial to one group or community. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who spearheaded the project, writes in the foreword:
“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.”
Words or phrases that the court has frowned upon are usually ones that make imputations about one or more aspects of the character of an individual. Instead of phrases like 'career woman'; 'chaste woman'; 'woman of easy virtue'; 'fallen woman'; 'Indian woman' as juxtaposed against 'Western woman'; 'seductress'; 'woman of loose morals'; 'promiscuous woman'; and 'wanton woman', the court has said that only the word 'woman' should be used. This means that the practice of describing the characteristics of a woman – particularly her perceived promiscuity, chastity, or modernity, should be avoided altogether.
Similarly, instead of calling a wife a dutiful, faithful, good, or obedient wife, just call her a wife, the court has advised. A mother should be called just that, without reference to her marital status. Words like 'hormonal' (to use a woman's emotional state), 'effeminate', and 'ladylike' should be avoided, and instead, an effort should be made to accurately describe the behaviour, characteristics or emotional state using gender-neutral terms. Slurs, particularly those against women and those attacking the sexual orientation of a person, or their gender identity are a strict no-no.
A second category of words can be culled out from the illustrative list provided in the handbook. Although these words are commonly used in legal parlance, the Supreme Court has suggested that their more politically correct and scientific alternatives be used in legal writing. A few examples are: 'woman who has engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage' instead of 'adulteress'; 'sex assigned at birth' instead of 'biological sex'; 'sexual intercourse' instead of 'carnal intercourse'; 'street sexual harassment' instead of 'eve teasing'; 'sex worker' instead of 'hooker' or 'prostitute'; and 'unmarried woman' instead of 'spinster'. Special care must also be taken to use LGBTQIA+ language, such as describing a person with reference to the sex assigned at birth, instead of calling them 'biological man', or 'biological woman', and using terms like 'transgender' and 'crossdresser' instead of older and outdated terms.
Notably, the handbook touches on a common dilemma surrounding the use of the word 'survivor' as opposed to 'victim' in the context of someone who has faced sexual assault. On this, it clarifies:
“Survivor or Victim? An individual who has been affected by sexual violence may identify themselves as either a “survivor” or “victim”. Both terms are applicable unless the individual has expressed a preference, in which case the individual's preference should be respected.”
The plan to release this legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms used in legal discourse, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud revealed at a Women's Day celebration earlier this year, has been in the works for several years – conceptualised during the COVID times. This was a mission he personally undertook, the Supreme Court judge said. During his speech, he also announced that such a handbook would soon be released.
This handbook identifies language that promotes gender stereotypes and offered suitable alternatives, flags common but incorrect reasoning patterns based on gender stereotypes, particularly those about women; and highlights binding decisions of the Supreme Court that has rejected these stereotypes. The draft has been prepared by the Social Justice Sub-Committee of the e-Committee which is headed by Calcutta High Court judge Moushumi Bhattacharya. Other people involved in the process included Delhi High Court Judge Prathiba M Singh, former judges Prabha Sridevan and Gita Mittal, and advocate and NUJS adjunct faculty member Jhuma Sen.
Click here to read the handbook