30 Aug 2023 10:28 AM GMT
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, in a letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, has flagged sexist behaviour that lawyers who are women routinely face at the Bar and in law offices, calling for a handbook on gender stereotyping specifically addressing the manner in which male colleagues must interact with their female counterparts.
Jaising has begun her letter by commending the publication of the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ by the E-Committee of the Supreme Court of India, which was released earlier this month to an overwhelmingly positive response. This handbook, prepared by a committee headed by Calcutta High Court judge Moushumi Bhattacharya, not only contains a glossary of inappropriate gendered terms used in legal discourse with a list of alternative words or phrases that should be used, but also flags common but incorrect reasoning patterns based on gender stereotypes, particularly those about women; and highlights binding decisions of the Supreme Court that has rejected these stereotypes. She has written –
Despite welcoming the move, the senior counsel has emphasised that gender stereotyping, a longstanding concern, persists in both legal proceedings and interactions. Even a veteran lawyer like herself is not immune to such gender stereotyping and micro-aggressions from her male colleagues, she has revealed in her letter. To illustrate, she has cited instances of subtle gender biases in courtroom interactions with her male counterparts – from patronising remarks to being referred to informally.
Jaising has revealed that not only has she been asked to not raise her voice in court, but her male colleagues would often refer to her as ‘she’ instead of ‘my learned friend’, as is the convention –
In this context, Jaising has urged the Supreme Court to develop a handbook specifically addressing gender stereotyping – often subtle in nature – targetting lawyers who are women. This handbook would, among other things, offer guidelines for male colleagues to treat women fairly in court and law offices –
Apart from this, the senior counsel has also raised concerns about the issue of sexual harassment faced by lawyers who are women in courtrooms and law offices. She points out that, despite a Supreme Court directive, institutions including the Bar Council of India have yet to declare sexual harassment by lawyers as professional misconduct.
Jaising suggests practical measures to combat gender stereotyping
Jaising has suggested practical measures to combat the issue of gender stereotyping, including the creation of a list of proscribed words not be used in advocacy, pleadings, and judgments, akin to the list published by the Indian Parliament containing unparliamentary expressions. This list would include pejorative terms and slur, which despite not being found in any statute, are used in common legal parlance. She has also called for alternatives to derogatory terms like ‘prostitute’ that continue to exist on the statute books (in this example, The Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act of 1956). The suggestions she has placed for the chief justice’s consideration are –
Not only this, Jaising has pointed out the prevalence of gender stereotyping in legal pleadings and oral arguments – particularly in matrimonial cases and rape trials – that make their way into judgments, recommending the creation of a model handbook on practice guidelines for pleadings that can be adopted by high courts and district courts. Such guidelines would ensure that gender biases and stereotyping are avoided from the very inception of legal proceedings. She has written –
Saying women have unleashed ‘legal terrorism’ by misusing Section 498A is gender stereotyping: Jaising
She has also drawn the attention of the chief justice to a recent Calcutta High Court judgment in which a single judge bench labelled women’s misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as ‘legal terrorism’. This provision punishes ‘cruelty’ against married women at the hands of her husband or his relatives, and includes harassment related to a demand for dowry. Jaising has insisted that generalising the issue, while the focus should be on the individual case of alleged misuse of the penal provision, leads to the creation of an impression that the judge has a gender bias –
After offering her suggestions, in conclusion, Jaising has expressed her gratitude to the Supreme Court for the ongoing efforts to foster inclusivity and gender sensitivity within the legal system, acknowledging the evolving process to achieve these goals.