Delhi High Court Calls For Inclusion Of 'Gender Equality' In Judicial Academy Curriculum, Says Hidden Biases Are Enemies Of Impartial Rulings

The Delhi High Court has said that issues such as gender equality and cultural diversity must be made part of the curriculum of the Delhi Judicial Academy, observing that hidden biases are enemies of impartial and equitable judgments.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that judicial education and training, focused not only on legal principles but also on understanding the diverse backgrounds and lived realities of those who come before the court, will go a long way in changing society's stereotypical thinking as it will result in better drafted judgments.

“Such training will also foster a deeper understanding of different perspectives and experiences, and will help judges make more informed and equitable decisions, thereby enhancing public trust and confidence in the legal system. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy for necessary action and compliance,” the court said.

Justice Sharma said that if the rulings are based on “hidden or apparent biases or perceptions”, the community which looks up to the judicial system may also hold them to be the path they have to tread on.

“Therefore, the judicial academies while imparting judicial education may take into account that as part of their continuing judicial education and training programs for the judges, they hold multiple awareness and sensitization conferences and training programs to sensitize the judges about the importance of authoring judgments free from gender biases or professional stereotypes, and keeping themselves focused on the merits of the case and substance of allegations mentioned in the complaint filed,” the court said.

Justice Sharma made the observations while setting aside the trial court order discharging a husband and his family members for the offences under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

The case was filed by the wife alleging that soon after her marriage, the husband and in laws started taunting and teasing her for bringing in insufficient dowry and also asked for more dowry. Both husband and wife were working as sub inspectors in the Delhi Police at the time of marriage.

Setting aside the impugned order, Justice Sharma noted that the Sessions Court discharged the accused persons primarily due to the reason that the complainant was working as a Police officer in Delhi Police, and thus, the offence in question could not have been committed against her.

The court called the said finding “perverse and not based on the principles of criminal jurisprudence and fair trial.” It added that the finding was based on an unjustified perception and bias that a person who is working as a police officer can never be a victim of domestic violence.

The court observed while deciding the question of framing of charge, the opinion of a court of law cannot be either blinded or prismed through any stereotype perception about any gender or perception about any profession.

“Though these biases, often ingrained in societal norms and cultural attitudes, can subtly influence the perceptions of a judge and the decision-making process, it is for a judge to remain unbiased in his mind and his words to ensure that justice is administered impartially to all, as per law,” the court said.

It added that a court cannot make sweeping generalizations about the credibility of the allegations levelled in a complaint on the basis of the gender of the victims and their professional stature.

“It should be the prime duty of the judicial academies to ensure that those who adorn the golden chairs of justice and are in command of the chariot of justice, should not see those who appear before them with spectacles and prisms of gender biasness but should at all times write their judgments wearing spectacles of gender neutrality, impartiality, equality and remaining aware of any hidden biases or perceptions one may hold as a judge,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Divjot Singh Bhatia, Advocate

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State; Mr. Gautam Das, Advocate for R-2

Title: SANGHMITRA v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 502

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER