A mislabelling of a Supreme Court handbook

In February this year, during a hearing on a sexual assault case, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Surya Kant, remarked that the Supreme Court Handbook — Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes — released in 2023 by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud to combat gender stereotypes, was ‘technical’ and ‘too Harvard-oriented. The CJI requested the National Judicial Academy to constitute a panel of domain experts, academicians and lawyers to review the handbook and submit a report. It was noted during the hearing that the forensic terms used in the handbook to describe different aspects of sexual assault cases may not be readily understood by survivors, their families, or laypersons. The Court also emphasised the need for greater practical training of judges.

Not ‘Harvard-oriented’ at all

While the emphasis on judicial training is welcome, a close reading of the handbook suggests that it is far from ‘Harvard-oriented’. On the contrary, it is firmly grounded in Indian precedent and courtroom realities. By its own terms, the handbook sets out three modest but important objectives — first, to identify language in judicial reasoning that perpetuates gender stereotypes and to suggest alternatives; second, to highlight common reasoning patterns based on such stereotypes and explain why they are incorrect; and third, to compile binding decisions of the Supreme Court of India that have already rejected these stereotypes.

After explaining the impact of stereotypes on judicial reasoning, the handbook provides, in a tabulated format, stereotype promoting language alongside recommended alternatives, which are further supported by case law. The goal is to ensure that judicial language aligns with constitutional commitments to dignity and equality.

Judgments and language

Consider, for instance, the Court’s decision in 2010 in D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal. In discussing whether a live-in relationship would qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court used the term “keep” to describe a woman “he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant”. The language later drew sharp criticism in court, from then Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising for its patriarchal connotations. The handbook flags precisely such expressions to ensure that future judgments avoid sexist language.

Similarly, Indian judgments have at times used the word “ravished” to describe rape. The term carries archaic, moralistic undertones, focusing more on romantic connotations than on consent and bodily autonomy. The use of problematic language in judgments in India has been documented for decades by feminist legal scholars. Across jurisdictions, initiatives such as the feminist judgments project have demonstrated how landmark rulings can be rewritten without patriarchal underpinnings.

The handbook, in its final section, lists key judgments that reject the stereotypes identified earlier. These are settled principles of law which are brought together in a structured and accessible manner. For instance, it is noted that the absence of injuries in a sexual violence case must be evaluated contextually. This has also been cited recently by the Court in an order concerning sexual assault where it was noted that there is no ‘correct’ or ‘appropriate’ way for a survivor to behave.

Who the handbook is meant for

More importantly, to call the handbook ‘too technical’ risks misunderstanding its audience. It is not addressed to survivors. It is addressed to judges and lawyers who are professionals trained to interpret statutes, weigh evidence and craft reasoned judgments.

None of this is to suggest that the handbook is beyond improvement. The handbook must evolve, particularly in response to feedback from the Bench, the bar and civil society. But, reform should be informed by an accurate understanding of what the document actually does.

The publication of the handbook marked a significant institutional acknowledgment: that language can entrench or dismantle inequality. By identifying stereotypes and grounding judicial reasoning in constitutional values, the Court took a step toward greater internal accountability. Calling it ‘technical’ and ‘Harvard-oriented’ risks diminishing the significance of that step.

Tiasha Mukherjee is a lawyer and a Master of Law candidate at the University of Cambridge