Daily Editorial Analysis 24 October 2026

Why Sensitive Legal Language Matters

Context

• The Indian judiciary plays a vital role in protecting constitutional rights and promoting equality.
• However, judicial language can sometimes reinforce social prejudices that the law seeks to eliminate.
• The Supreme Court’s efforts to revise guidelines on gender-sensitive language recognise that justice requires both impartial legal reasoning and social sensitivity.
• Despite revised handbooks and judicial training, patriarchal assumptions persist, making deeper institutional and attitudinal reform essential.

The Need to Reform Judicial Language

• Chief Justice of India Surya Kant called for revising the 2024 Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, describing it as too technical and Harvard-oriented in February 2026. This led to the revised Handbook on Judgments and Gender, published in August 2026.
• The revised handbook promotes sensitivity in judicial language and practice.
• Its analysis of 125 trial court judgments across States found that, despite improvements, outdated expressions such as real victim and the perpetuation of rape myths remained prevalent.
• Judicial language influences how victims, accused persons, and marginalised communities are perceived.
• Insensitive terminology can reinforce stereotypes, undermine dignity, and weaken public confidence in justice.
• The Supreme Court’s condemnation of an Allahabad High Court judge’s remarks in a 2025 POCSO judgment further demonstrated the consequences of gender-insensitive judicial reasoning.

Limitations of Earlier Reform Efforts

• Previous initiatives included judicial training, awareness programmes, and guidelines on appropriate terminology.
• Judges were also encouraged to consult international frameworks, including the 2022 Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on Applying a Gender Perspective in South and Southeast Asia.
• However, persistent stereotypes reveal that memorising appropriate terminology cannot eliminate deep-rooted prejudice.
• Judges may replace problematic expressions without questioning the assumptions behind their decisions.
• Effective reform must address the social attitudes and institutional practices that influence judicial reasoning.

Dealing with Insensitivity

• Justice Lalitha Kanneganti’s observation that no parent is a visitor in the life of a child illustrates the importance of examining the social context of seemingly ordinary expressions.
• Indian society traditionally regards mothers as primary caregivers, while fathers are often treated as secondary participants in childcare.
• Consequently, mothers are expected to assume immediate parenting responsibilities, while fathers are frequently viewed mainly as financial providers.
• The distinction between mothers who “take care” of children and fathers who merely “babysit” reflects deep-rooted gender stereotypes.
• Replacing “visitation” with “parenting time” challenges these assumptions by recognising fathers as active parents rather than occasional visitors.
• Parenting involves emotional engagement, everyday care, and participation in a child’s development, not merely financial maintenance.
• Judicial sensitivity must therefore go beyond changing words to questioning the social assumptions embedded in legal concepts.

The Role of the Feminist Judgments Project

• The Feminist Judgments Project seeks to expose hidden biases in judicial reasoning and promote substantive equality.
• It encourages judges to examine unequal power relationships and question apparently neutral rules that may produce discriminatory outcomes.
• Gender-sensitive judgments must consider social conventions and historical disadvantages rather than merely avoid offensive expressions.
• For example, treating mothers as default caregivers can disadvantage fathers seeking equal participation in childcare.
• Formal equality applies the same rules to everyone, whereas substantive equality recognises unequal social conditions and addresses structural disadvantages.
• A feminist perspective can help courts deliver more inclusive and equitable judgments.

Beyond Gender: Disability, Caste and Tribal Realities

• Judicial sensitivity must also encompass persons with disabilities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other marginalised communities.
• Accessibility measures may undermine dignity if they disregard the individuality and perspectives of persons with disabilities.
• Similarly, inadequate understanding of caste discrimination and tribal histories can prevent courts from recognising structural inequalities.
• Social disadvantage is multidimensional, requiring judicial decisions to consider historical, cultural, economic, and institutional realities.
• Greater representation of women and diverse communities on the Bench can help identify biases that might otherwise remain overlooked.

The Significance of the Karnataka High Court’s Decision

• The Karnataka High Court’s decision to replace visitation with parenting time in child custody cases marks a constructive step towards inclusive judicial language.
• In her October 7, 2026 order, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti recognised that parenting is a continuing responsibility rather than an occasional visit.
• The decision challenges gender stereotypes and promotes shared parental responsibility.
• However, such initiatives remain limited and context-specific.
• Their wider impact depends on whether other courts adopt similar practices and integrate sensitivity into everyday judicial decision-making.

Conclusion

• Reforming judicial language is essential to strengthening the fairness and credibility of India’s justice system.
• However, linguistic reform must accompany changes in judicial thinking. Handbooks and training programmes are useful, but cannot independently dismantle entrenched prejudices.
• The judiciary must question underlying assumptions, promote diverse representation, and recognise marginalised communities’ lived experiences.
• Ultimately, gender-sensitive justice must advance towards substantive equality so that judicial language becomes an instrument of empowerment rather than discrimination.

Why Sensitive Legal Language Matters FAQs

Q1. What is the purpose of the revised Handbook on Judgments and Gender?
Ans. The handbook promotes gender-sensitive language and judicial practices.

Q2. Why have earlier reform efforts been insufficient?
Ans. Earlier efforts failed to eliminate deep-rooted social prejudices and gender stereotypes.

Q3. What does parenting time signify?
Ans. Parenting time recognises both parents as active participants in childcare.

Q4. What is the objective of the Feminist Judgments Project?
Ans. The project seeks to expose judicial biases and promote substantive equality.

Q5. How can judicial sensitivity be strengthened?
Ans. Judicial sensitivity can be strengthened through inclusive representation, contextual understanding, and unbiased decision-making.

Source: The Hindu

‹ ›