- At the outset, let us make an honest admission as to how many of us are adequately educated in clearly comprehending the judicial jargon being used so extensively by the Lordships. Trust me, the majority of us will remain clueless to comprehend what is being narrated and forget about dissecting the judicial pronouncements. As it is, the English judgments are out of the inference zone of even the reasonably well-educated lot. And when you add large chunks of judicial jargon into the mix, it becomes even more challenging to scratch the surface of inference. Ask any unfortunate souls about their experience of undergoing the judicial rigmarole, and all of them would narrate in unison about anything but pleasant exchanges in the corridors of the judiciary.
PC: Milan George
- To further complicate the matter, the colonial era jargon sprinkled with an ominous amount of patriarchy and misogynistic tinted language invariably makes its presence felt in the judicial judgments. Despite making tremendous progress on the back of mind-blowing technological inventions and increased emphasis on gender equality and parity, the predicament of women in a male-dominated society continues to be under severe strain. No questions asked. Needless to mention, the law has long looked through the eyes of men. Why? Because judges and lawyers have been men, for the most part, or have been formed by our patriarchal society. All too many judgments and observations have perpetuated sexist reasoning.
- Centuries of conditioning have made their mental shortcuts about good and bad women, or ideal families, or the right kind of victim, have implications for the women seeking justice. Welcomingly, now the SC has launched a handbook on combating gender stereotypes. The guide flags words like concubine or dutiful wife, or faggot, which encoded a frankly toxic worldview, and suggests alternatives. This is entirely welcome. Language articulates consciousness, and changing words is crucial to changing thoughts. The law lives through language. Words used in court have material power over our lives. Terms like housewife, chaste woman, or mistress are not neutral descriptors, they carry a payload of social judgment.
PC: Avadhesh Dixit
- Of course, they paint a picture of the male as the provider, and the good female as dependent and docile. They question the sexual freedom of women and sexual minorities. The sexist world is at play big time. These attributed roles are the assumptions of a sexist world where men have traditionally had assets and income, and women provide sexual and domestic services. Sexist stereotypes also often sway matters of separation and custody. It’s telling that a sexual crime is cast as offending the modesty of a woman rather than an infringement of her bodily autonomy. This handbook might make judges and lawyers reflect on their sympathies and instincts. It might give them pause, to see things from a better angle. Hope things will change for good.
