Why sensitive legal language matters

Over the last few months, the Supreme Court of India has been engaged in an ongoing conversation about reforming judicial language, through the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s call for revising its 2024 Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes. In February, the CJI claimed that the Handbook was ‘technical and Harvard-oriented’, prompting a revised version which was published in August 2026. The revised Handbook on Judgments and Gender also advocates sensitivity in judicial language and practice.

In light of these developments, the Karnataka High Court’s recent decision to replace the term ‘visitation’ with ‘parenting time’ in child custody cases is a welcome step in furthering the conversation around sensitive judicial language. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti’s October 7 order rightly recognises the fact that parenting is not a responsibility that can be easily abdicated. Unfortunately, such steps continue to remain limited and context-specific, rather than becoming widespread judicial initiatives.

For every instance of the judiciary displaying empathy, multiple instances of insensitivity continue to persist. This was recognised by the Supreme Court itself, while condemning the remarks of an Allahabad High Court judge in a 2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) judgment which eventually led to the revision of the 2024 Handbook. The 2026 Handbook analysed 125 trial court judgments across States, and admitted that although judgments reflected ‘a modern, gender-sensitive judicial approach’, the use of outdated, patriarchal terms such as ‘real victim’ and ‘rape myths’ persisted.

Past attempts to introduce gender sensitivity have clearly not been very successful. Judges have been sent for training and awareness sessions at judicial academies, and have been asked to study the recommendations for using specific language which have been laid out in the Handbooks as well as other material, including international frameworks such as the 2022 Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on Applying a Gender Perspective in South and Southeast Asia. 

What will be done differently this time?

Dealing with insensitivity

The answer, perhaps, lies in the way shown by Justice Lalitha in truly engaging with what judicial insensitivity means, and why it matters. At first glance, her statement that ‘no parent is a visitor in the life of a child’ could be taken as a simple, universal fact. The parent’s gender does not really make a difference when it comes to not being a ‘visitor’. The truth, however, goes back — as all things do — to patriarchal expectations. The general assumption is that mothers are the more natural parents. The immediate parenting responsibility is thrust upon them in child custody cases. This is again linked with gendered parenting norms, such as the idea that mothers ‘take care’ while fathers ‘babysit’ their children, particularly in the Indian social context where women are still overwhelmingly the primary caregivers at home.

The powerful reminder that fathers, then, are not merely ‘visitors’ but must also be cast as active parents beyond the payment of maintenance understands that judicial sensitivity is not just a matter of swapping one problematic term for another slightly less problematic term. Words have meanings which cannot be separated from their social contexts, and change will come forth only when we are willing to recognise and confront them. This is what the Feminist Judgments Project aims to do. Sensitivity cannot be brought in by memorising and using specific terminology. The aim should be to examine underlying assumptions and identify areas where a feminist gaze would confront these biases and lead to a different conclusion, upholding substantive equality.

This requires meaningful representation of women and other diverse communities on the Bench in order to proactively identify areas where seemingly neutral terms cover up stark insensitivity. Attention must also be paid to insensitivity that can slip through other contexts: for example, well-intentioned efforts to provide access to persons with disabilities which nevertheless continue to dismiss dignity and individuality, or gaps in understanding caste or tribal socio-historical realities. The judiciary’s ongoing conversations on sensitive language must contextualise these, delve deeper, and dismantle structural societal barriers.

Priyamvadha Shivaji is Senior Resident Fellow, Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal