For example, in place of ‘adulteress’, ‘woman who has engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage’ can be used. An ‘affair’ should be termed a ‘relationship outside of marriage’. As Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said, semiotic stereotypes irrespective of language affect outcomes of cases and promote retrograde ideas about women. This ultimately undermines the transformative project of the law and Constitution, which seek to secure equal rights for all persons, irrespective of gender.
The Constitution gives courts the power to effect changes in society. This has been used in many instances by benches of the apex court to reject stereotypes, particularly related to women. The handbook is a vital guide. But for it to translate into practice, there must be changes in society, police and education system that often constructs and perpetuates these stereotypes.
This is a time-consuming task. However, a gender-sensitive judiciary will, hopefully, encourage more women to approach courts without the fear of victimisation, especially for cases involving sexual harassment and violence. As well as normalise gender sensitivity and ‘abnormalise’ disparity and narrow-mindedness passed on as tradition, across other fields of life.
Even outside legalese, language, the bedrock of behaviour, must imbibe and practice its crucial message: rethink the words you use daily; avoid sexist, patriarchal and misogynistic language. For, language mirrors behaviour, which, in turn, mirrors language.
