The CJI’s comments came after a series of high-profile cases where lawyers and even judges were criticized for using offensive and gender-insensitive remarks. These instances have drawn considerable public attention, prompting discussions about the judiciary’s role in setting a standard for respectful discourse, especially in cases involving sexual harassment, domestic violence, and other gender-related issues.
Chandrachud's remarks align with the growing global focus on the importance of language in shaping societal attitudes. Countries like the United States have also passed laws to amend legal codes that include outdated, offensive terms. For example, the U.S. Senate recently passed the "Words Matter for District of Columbia Courts Act," removing the word “retarded” from the D.C. legal code. Such moves reflect a collective shift towards eliminating discriminatory language from legal texts, reinforcing the idea that language in the legal framework holds power over how society perceives marginalized groups.
India’s judiciary, despite being one of the oldest institutions in the world, has not been immune to criticism over its handling of cases involving gender violence and discrimination. While the Indian Penal Code and other statutes provide protection for women, the language used during court proceedings often influences public perception of the cases. Offensive remarks, even when unintentional, can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, affecting the fairness of the trial.
The CJI's commitment to addressing these issues highlights the need for continuous training of judges and legal professionals on gender sensitivity. Courts in other countries, such as Canada and the UK, have implemented similar measures, requiring mandatory training to help judges recognize and eliminate unconscious bias. India’s judicial system, despite its progress, still faces significant challenges in terms of gender equity. Ensuring that derogatory language does not enter the courtroom is a crucial step towards fostering a more inclusive environment.
This is not the first time Chandrachud has raised his voice on issues of gender justice. Earlier this year, he called for greater representation of women within the judiciary, pointing out that while there are women in lower courts, their numbers remain dismally low in the higher echelons of the legal system. The Supreme Court of India has only a handful of women judges, a situation that Chandrachud has committed to addressing. By emphasizing the importance of respectful language, the CJI continues to advocate for systemic changes that extend beyond mere representation.
The Indian legal system has long been criticized for its treatment of women, both in terms of the language used in courts and the outcomes of cases involving violence against women. The Nirbhaya case, for instance, was a turning point in public discourse about gender-based violence in India, with the Supreme Court taking a firm stance on the issue. However, despite landmark rulings, there remains a gap between the judiciary's rulings and the ground realities faced by women in India.
Efforts to bring about legal reforms aimed at enhancing the status of women in the judicial process have also been seen elsewhere. Legislative measures such as the "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act" and the "Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act" are crucial steps. However, ensuring that these laws are enforced in a manner that respects women's dignity requires vigilance not just in the application of the law but in the language used to interpret it.
Chandrachud's stance represents a broader shift in how courts are expected to operate in the 21st century, with an increased emphasis on respect, equality, and dignity for all participants in the judicial process. As public scrutiny on the judiciary's handling of sensitive cases grows, the role of language becomes more critical in setting a tone of fairness and impartiality.
Reforms to address the issues raised by the CJI will likely include a combination of new guidelines on courtroom language, stricter enforcement of existing gender-related protections, and perhaps mandatory training programs for legal professionals. These measures would aim to eliminate not only blatant derogatory remarks but also more subtle forms of gender bias that may go unnoticed in courtroom discourse.
Although the judiciary is expected to be a neutral arbiter of justice, its participants—judges, lawyers, and witnesses—are not immune to the biases that pervade society. Language, often a reflection of deeper societal attitudes, plays a crucial role in either reinforcing or challenging these biases. The judiciary, by upholding standards of respect and fairness, can influence the broader societal norms regarding how women are treated, both inside and outside the courtroom.