By Tanvi Rupakula
In August, the Supreme Court took a step forward in combating gender bias embedded in legal language and court proceedings by flagging a list of terms, stereotypes, and phrases as inappropriate. The 30-page handbook for judges contains a glossary of discriminatory words, such as “adulteress”, “concubine”, and “woman of loose morals”, as well as alternative ways to express what is meant. For example, it recommends that “affair” should be referred to as “relationship outside of marriage”.
The document argues how stereotypes are categorically different from reality, paired with myriad examples of predominant stereotypes against women and rebuttals to them. For instance, it refutes the claim that “women are more nurturing and better suited to care for others,” by stating that “[people] of all genders are equally suited to the task of caring for others. Women are often socially conditioned to care for others from a young age. Many women are also forced to abandon their careers to care for children and the elderly.”
The handbook stands out in how it foregrounds language as a vehicle of social discrimination. In the foreword, CJI Chandrachud writes, “Words transmit the ultimate intention of the lawmaker or the judge to the nation […] Where the language of judicial discourse reflects antiquated or incorrect ideas about women, it inhibits the transformative project of the law and the Constitution of India, which seek to secure equal rights to all persons, irrespective of gender.” There are also stereotypes that directly lead to testimonial injustice against women, like the notion that women lie about sexual assault.
While the focus remains on how stereotypes and discriminative language adversely impact judgment, the handbook has another invaluable purpose: the creation of a safe space. For time immemorial, official spaces have been hostile to the presence of women in a wide array of ways. Ridding courts of language that categorise women into socially constructed pools of good and bad is, therefore, a step forward in making women feel less alienated.
Such measures are not unprecedented. In 2017, Telangana became the first state to mandate a class on gender sensitisation for undergraduate students in all colleges. They also commissioned a textbook for the same, called Towards a World of Equals, which had a chapter on patriarchal language. Writing for the Mint, Aparna Raje argued that the framework used in this handbook is congenial for implementation in corporate spaces as well. One institution, however, remains starkly unchallenged by newer waves of anti-discrimination moves: the Parliament.
A month after the SC announced their handbook, on September 23rd, BJP MP of South Delhi, Ramesh Bidhuri, was caught on tape hurling communal, Islamophobic slurs at a fellow MP from the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Danish Ali during an active Parliament session. Allegedly during an argument on the launching of Chandrayaan-3, Bidhuri erupted in a slew of communally coded expletives — including ‘Muslim terrorist among other slurs used against Muslims — against Mr. Ali which were not only derogatory in nature but malicious as well. Since then, multiple opposition leaders have come forward in support of Danish Ali, including Rahul Gandhi who visited the former in his abode to show solidarity.
Shockingly, the Speaker of the House, Om Birla, has taken no strong punitive action against Bidhuri and has only given him a warning for using an “unparliamentary word”. BJP spokesmen have issued a weak apology, tailed by a comment on how opposition leaders do not act against those who “defame” PM Modi. However, this is hardly ‘defamation.’ This was a targeted silencing of an MP through verbal abuse.
Earlier this year in March 2023, the parliament decided to ban a list of “unparliamentary” words and expunge them from the debates if used. A quick look at the list reveals that this act bears little resemblance to the SC handbook and is instead akin to censorship. Containing words such as “corruption”, “COVID spreader”, “dictatorial”, “shame” and so on, it was evident that the intention was to strangle criticism of the ruling party. On the other hand, issues of hate speech remain blatantly ignored — to the extent that even acts of clear verbal abuse and religious discrimination like this can go unpunished in the House.
As the Supreme Court of India asks courts to avoid using even mildly discriminative terms, the apex legislative body has failed to punish even the grossest derogation of a member of a minority. The exculpation of such an offence in the Parliament, arguably the most important body of people in the country, sets a deeply worrying example for the rest of India. Today, as hate speech and anti-Muslims climb to unparalleled heights, Birla’s lukewarm action has sent out a clear message — that a slap on the wrist is all one gets for openly demeaning a Muslim, even in the Parliament.
Tanvi Rupakula is a Research Intern at the Centre for Development Policy and Practice, Hyderabad.
| 
