Gender Specific Laws Not "Anti-Opposite Gender", Only Meant To Address Unique Issues Faced By A Particular Gender: Delhi High Court

In an attempt to strike a “neutral chord”, the Delhi High Court has explained how courts should deal with “gender-specific laws” and remain “gender neutral”, while emphasizing that the approach should not be biased towards a particular gender in such cases.

“The mere fact that legislation is designed to address specific gender-related concerns should not be misconstrued as being inherently biased against the opposite gender or being anti-men wherever applicable. To repeat, it is crucial to recognize that gender-specific laws are not meant to be "anti-opposite gender" but rather serve the purpose of addressing unique issues faced by a particular gender,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled.

The court further observed that existence of a gender-specific legislation does not empower courts to “relax the golden principle of availability of sufficient material on record at the stage of framing of charge.”

It added that the foundation of any legal proceeding, regardless of the specific gender it relates to, rests on the “availability of adequate evidence and adherence to due process of law.” In essence, gender specificity should not compromise the fundamental principles of fairness and justice, the court said.

Furthermore, Justice Sharma said that the fact that a piece of legislation is gender-specific should not be misconstrued to mean that the role of a judge changes from being neutral to tilting towards a particular gender.

“Irrespective of the gender-specific nature of a law, the judicial duty fundamentally requires unwavering neutrality and impartiality. The judge's role is to objectively interpret and apply the law, free from any form of gender bias or predisposition. Gender-specific legislation exists to address the unique concerns and challenges faced by particular genders within society. However, this does not imply that the judge is to be influenced or swayed by gender-related factors when administering justice unless specific presumptions are legislated in favour of a particular gender in law,” the court said.

It added that judicial neutrality is an indispensable cornerstone of the legal system which ensures that all parties, regardless of gender, are treated fairly and equitably.

“In India, the criminal justice system is adversarial in nature. However, it cannot be seen as adversarial between men and women per se. Instead, it should solely revolve around two individuals: one being the complainant and the other being the accused irrespective of the gender, however, at the same time, while adjudicating the cases firmly remembering and appreciating the social context and situation of a particular gender who may be in a lesser advantageous situation than the other,” the court said.

Justice Sharma made the observations while setting aside a trial court order framing charges against a man for outraging modesty of a woman employee by using vulgar language against her and calling her a “gandi aurat.”

Observing that Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not inherently introduce a presumption in favour of women, Justice Sharma said it is essential for courts to apply principles of charge and discharge objectively without being unduly influenced by the fact that the provision is gender-specific.

“The mere gender specificity of a legal provision does not automatically create a presumption in favor of that gender, unless such a presumption is explicitly articulated within the legislation itself. In other words, the Court should approach cases under Section 509 IPC with a neutral and impartial stance, treating and testing them in accordance with long established criminal legal principles of law and procedure,” the court said.

Advocates K.C. Mittal, Yugansh Mittal and Vaibhav Yadav appeared for the petitioner. APP Manoj Pant represented the State.

Case Title: VARUN BHATIA v. STATE AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 761

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment