Why sensitive legal language matters

Why in the News

The Supreme Court of India has published a revised Handbook on Judgments and Gender, and the Karnataka High Court has replaced the term “visitation” with “parenting time” in child custody cases. Insensitive remarks still persist in courts, because training and approved word lists have not changed the assumptions behind the words.

What is the revised Handbook on Judgments and Gender, and why was it needed?

1. What it is: A Supreme Court guide that tells judges which words and assumptions to avoid in judgments involving gender. It works like a style guide for judicial writing.
2. Trigger: The Supreme Court condemned remarks by an Allahabad High Court judge in a 2025 judgment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
3. Earlier Handbook: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) called the earlier Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes “technical and Harvard-oriented”, which led to a revised version.
4. Finding: The Handbook analysed 125 trial court judgments across States. They showed “a modern, gender-sensitive judicial approach”, yet outdated patriarchal terms such as “real victim” and “rape myths” persisted.
5. The takeaway: Guidance has improved, but old words survive in judgments, so the problem is habits of thought and not a missing list of terms.

Why does replacing “visitation” with “parenting time” matter?

1. The Karnataka order: The October 7 order held that “no parent is a visitor in the life of a child”, so “visitation” wrongly casts one parent as a guest.
2. Hidden assumption: Society treats mothers as the more natural parents, so custody cases thrust parenting duty on them. Gendered norms say mothers “take care” and fathers “babysit”.
3. Active fathers: The new term casts fathers as active parents beyond paying maintenance, because a father is not a visitor either.

Why have training and word lists not ended insensitivity?

1. Efforts so far: Judges have attended training at judicial academies and studied the Handbooks and frameworks such as the 2022 Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on applying a gender perspective.
2. Persisting insensitivity: For every instance of judicial empathy, multiple instances of insensitivity persist, as the Supreme Court itself recognised.
3. Words carry context: Words have meanings tied to their social contexts, and change comes only when courts recognise and confront those meanings.

Challenges

1. Isolated reforms: Sensitive steps stay limited and context-specific instead of becoming widespread judicial practice.
2. Advisory guidance: Handbooks bind no judge, so compliance depends on each judge’s willingness.
3. Word drills: Memorising approved terms or swapping one problematic term for a slightly less problematic one leaves the assumption behind it untouched.
4. Blind spots beyond gender: Access measures for persons with disabilities can still dismiss dignity and individuality, and caste and tribal realities are poorly understood.

Way Forward

1. Examine assumptions: Follow the Feminist Judgments Project, which examines the assumptions beneath a judgment and asks where a gender-aware view would reach a different conclusion. This upholds substantive equality.
2. Diverse Bench: Increase meaningful representation of women and other diverse communities on the Bench, so that neutral-looking terms that hide insensitivity are spotted.
3. Explain, do not only replace: Follow the Karnataka order’s method of explaining what insensitivity means and why it matters.
4. Wider contexts: Extend the conversation on sensitive language to disability, caste and tribal realities and to structural societal barriers.

Conclusion

Sensitive judicial language will come from courts examining the assumptions behind their words, not from approved word lists. What to watch is whether other High Courts follow the Karnataka approach and whether appointments widen the diversity of the Bench.

Women’s Representation in the Indian Judiciary

1. Supreme Court: Only one of the Court’s 34 sanctioned judges is a woman.
2. High Courts and district courts: Women are about 14.27% of High Court judges and about 38% of district and subordinate court judges.
3. Bar pipeline: Women are only about 15% of India’s 1.7 million advocates, and many leave litigation mid-career for lack of support on work-life balance.
4. Appointment rules: The Collegium (the senior judges who recommend appointments) has no formal gender-diversity criteria. Article 233 needs seven years of practice for a district judge, which weighs on women with family duties.

Matching Previous Year Question

“No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Thematic PYQ: [2024, GS2, 15 marks] Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?”