The Supreme Court has strongly criticized a Bombay High Court judgment for using misogynistic language against a woman whose marriage was declared void, describing her as an “illegitimate wife” or a “faithful mistress.” The apex court asserted that such terminology violates the fundamental rights of the woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih emphasized that every individual has the fundamental right to live a dignified life under Article 21. The court stated, “Describing a woman by using these words is against the ethos and ideals of our Constitution. No one can use such adjectives while referring to a woman who is a party to a void marriage. Unfortunately, we find that such objectionable language is used in a judgment of the Full Bench of a High Court. The use of such words is misogynistic. The law laid by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court is obviously not correct.”
The Supreme Court also pointed out that such derogatory terms had not been used by the high court for husbands in void marriages, highlighting the inherent gender bias in judicial language. This observation came while the bench was addressing a reference regarding whether a spouse is entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) even if the marriage is declared void.
This rebuke comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent release of the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, which aims to help judges and the legal community identify and challenge stereotypes about women. The handbook provides a glossary of gender-biased terms and suggests alternative, neutral language for use in legal documents, pleadings, and judgments.
The Supreme Court’s intervention is a significant step toward ensuring gender sensitivity in judicial pronouncements and upholding the dignity of women in legal proceedings. The ruling serves as a reminder that legal discourse must align with constitutional principles and refrain from perpetuating discriminatory narratives.
