Words matter. In a newspaper report, court judgement, or the actual legal statutes of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), words that describe a crime, the perpetrator, and the victim or survivor always reflect the bias — conscious, or otherwise — of the person uttering them. A committee led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose has addressed the pernicious impact of incorrect language in its recent report. The committee’s genesis lies in the unsavoury remarks of an Allahabad high court bench ruling on a Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) case, last March. The top court stayed the high court order, took suo motu notice to revisit judicial practices in sexual offence cases, and set up the five-member panel under Justice Bose. The committee, after examining 125 trial court judgements, made a number of recommendations.
To wit: “Helpless woman/helpless female” can be replaced by the more neutral “complainant or survivor”; phrases like “It destroys the very soul of a helpless woman” and “She was enticed away (good faith)” can be replaced with “Crime caused severe trauma to the survivor” and “Accused lured/abducted victim by gaining trust”, respectively. The report also exhorts the judiciary to avoid using religious and physiological references, or to speak of a woman’s honour and/or shame. For instance, sentences like “where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice” and “X outraged the modesty of Y” point to a worldview where a woman’s modesty, virginity/sexual conduct, and choice of clothes play a role in the commission of a crime against her. While that may well be the limited socio-cultural understanding that all women contend with daily, the courtroom must remain a site where their constitutional right to personhood, choice, life, liberty, and dignity are upheld, irrespective of what society thinks.
The report acknowledges that judicial sensitivity is an ongoing process. We have come a long way from the General Clauses Act of 1897 which included the female pronoun in the definition of “he”. More recently, the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes also listed harmful gender stereotypes, in particular those about women, in judicial decision-making and writing. But, it is incumbent upon judges to undergo training to continuously address their unconscious biases and gender stereotypes. By doing so, they ensure that their judgements are in a language that is respectful, neutral, and free from stereotypes. Their words, after all, protect and uphold constitutional values of all of us — man, woman, and transperson alike.
{{/usCountry}}The report acknowledges that judicial sensitivity is an ongoing process. We have come a long way from the General Clauses Act of 1897 which included the female pronoun in the definition of “he”. More recently, the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes also listed harmful gender stereotypes, in particular those about women, in judicial decision-making and writing. But, it is incumbent upon judges to undergo training to continuously address their unconscious biases and gender stereotypes. By doing so, they ensure that their judgements are in a language that is respectful, neutral, and free from stereotypes. Their words, after all, protect and uphold constitutional values of all of us — man, woman, and transperson alike.
{{/usCountry}}