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• Its analysis of 125 trial court judgments across States found that, despite improvements, outdated expressions such as real victim and the perpetuation of rape myths remained prevalent.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.