6 min readFeb 18, 2026 04:11 PM IST
First published on: Feb 18, 2026 at 04:10 PM IST
Written by Priyamvadha Shivaji
India is no stranger to violence against women. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau shows that nearly 4.48 lakh cases were registered in 2023 alone, with many of these cases being “cruelty by husband or his relatives”, “outraging the modesty of women”, “immoral trafficking”, in addition to sexual assault (including assault of minors). Yet, what often goes unnoticed in how courts tackle these cases is the potential re-victimisation of survivors through the use of outdated stereotypes and patriarchal mindsets.
In 2024, the Supreme Court Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes was released precisely to tackle this gap. The Handbook notes that judges, in particular, must be vigilant in correcting their use of words and phrases that may have the effect of demeaning women, to ensure that the constitutional promise of transformative and meaningful justice for all is fulfilled. With such an explicit justification of the need to combat demeaning language, it is all the more astonishing that Chief Justice of India Surya Kant feels that the Handbook must be revised to be “less technical and Harvard-oriented”.
Why the Gender Handbook Matters
Unfortunately, the Indian judiciary is still a long way from becoming truly sensitive and understanding of the needs and requirements of women. With a single woman judge at the Supreme Court (and only 11 women in its entire history), and only around 14 per cent of high court judges being women, the opportunity for women to utilise their experiences and share their perspectives on the bench has historically been very low. At the district courts, the figure is slightly higher but still not ideal — approximately 35 per cent of all judges are women.
Gender-inclusive judiciaries lead to greater public trust in the system, with more women on the bench allowing for an environment that is more conducive to calling out patterns of sexism and misogyny, drawing from their own experiences and backgrounds. Of course, women judges are not infallible or automatically biased towards women (and nor should they be). However, lived experiences show that women have, in much greater proportions, been subject to sexist and demeaning remarks — ranging from assaults on their character and looks, comments about the so-called “rightful” extent of permissible roles and responsibilities, and condescension undervaluing their competence and abilities. This experience is crucial in helping to identify and correct stereotypical behaviour and language, particularly those couched in “benevolent sexism,” which, supposedly, does not seek to intentionally demean women.
In the absence of a truly representative judiciary, the Gender Handbook seeks to sensitise judges about the multiple ways in which gendered language, which may be seen at first glance to be innocuous, actually results in harmful outcomes. The Handbook highlights several such examples: It cautions against the casual use of terms such as “harlot” or “fallen woman”, with their negative pre-assumptions about women’s character. It notes that clothing/dress cannot be “provocative”, a term usually liberally employed by judges dismissing sexual assault because victims supposedly asked for it because of their clothing. Terms such as “ravished” to describe sexual assault are discarded for their failure to accurately describe the sheer breadth of the violence experienced by women. It notes that the casual derision of women as “hormonal” is a harmful stereotype, minimising women’s capabilities.
The Handbook also highlights instances where sexist thinking can pervade the judicial application of mind and mar the eventual decisions of a case due to these pre-existing biases. It notes that the assumption of women as being “more passive” or “physically weaker than men”; that women must “appear chaste” and “more nurturing”, that working mothers are “less competent because they are distracted by childcare” are all examples of outdated thinking which only serve to limit and harm women’s empowerment.
None of these terms is “technical”, as CJI Kant puts it. These are all stock phrases that have been used by Indian judges in many judgments, including in POCSO judgments, where studies have shown a pattern to rely on cultural expectations over a strict application of the law. It is impossible to understand objections to a list that asks judges to not adhere to the thinking that “rape taints the honour of a woman and her family, which may be restored through marriage to the perpetrator”. Indeed, by saying that Indian women may not be able to comprehend this scenario, which is based on the Indian cultural expectations of family honour and marriage, because it is “Harvard-oriented”, the SC is once again devaluing and diminishing women’s capabilities.
Let the Judiciary Listen
The Gender Handbook, while a crucial tool, is not the final step towards improving judicial attitudes towards women. Its primary audience is judges themselves, not survivors of violence. There are no “forensic descriptions of sexual assault” in the Handbook; there are examples of cases where the courts have laid down guidelines for dealing with crimes against women.
Yet, it is clear that there has been no real change in judicial attitudes. CJI Kant’s observations arose in a case where the Allahabad HC shockingly made an unfathomable distinction between “preparation to rape” and “rape” of a minor. Recently, a bench of Justices Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan commented in court that women ought not to enter into premarital sexual relations. Their awareness that their view was “old-fashioned” did not stop the judges (including, in a sad ironic twist, the sole woman judge) from passing moral judgments on women’s character and freedom of choice rather than deciding the case at hand on actual facts, which is exactly what the Gender Handbook warns against.
The writer is a Senior Resident Fellow, Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal
Recently, a bench of Justices Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan commented in court that women ought not to enter into premarital sexual relations. Their awareness that their view was "old-fashioned" did not stop the judges (including, in a sad ironic twist, the sole woman judge) from passing moral judgments on women's character and freedom of choice rather than deciding the case at hand on actual facts, which is exactly what the Gender Handbook warns against. (File photo) 
Share
