The Delhi High Court has stated that using offensive language that reinforces gender stereotypes and violates the dignity and rights of individuals based on their gender should be avoided in legal documents and arguments.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has recommended the use of the 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes,' a recent publication by the Supreme Court, as a valuable resource for guiding the drafting of legal documents, including pleadings, orders, and judgments.

The court emphasized that the legal community can play a significant role in dismantling deeply rooted and concealed biases in society by proactively confronting and rejecting gender stereotypes in their language, conduct, and engagements. This involves refraining from employing offensive terms that reinforce stereotypes and diminish the dignity and rights of individuals based on their gender.
The court further emphasized that it is the responsibility of the legal community to promote a culture characterized by gender sensitivity, advocating for principles of fairness and respect not only in their professional behavior but also in the content of legal documents.

“The adversarial nature of our criminal legal system can sometimes lead one of the parties to employ strong language in an attempt to advance their interests. Lawyers are entitled to present their client's cases to the best of their abilities while maintaining fairness. However, this does not justify the use of offensive, abusive, disrespectful, derogatory, and misogynistic language in pursuit of this goal,” the court had stated.

Justice Sharma also highlighted that although there are instances where forceful language may be warranted in legal pleadings to advance the pursuit of justice, it should not venture into offensiveness and should consistently uphold the dignity associated with the legal profession. The court stressed that, whenever possible, pleadings should maintain a tone of dignity and respect.

The court made these remarks while handling a case involving a woman's petition challenging a trial court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of rape. In this specific case, the court declined to revoke the anticipatory bail that had been granted to the accused. However, the court expressed strong disapproval of the language and derogatory terms employed by the accused in his counter-affidavit against the woman.

The accused in the case had made several derogatory and offensive statements about the woman in his counter affidavit. These statements included accusing the woman of having "extremely wicked or villainous designs" and engaging in "seductive" behavior that led him to propose marriage. He expressed shock upon discovering that she was not a virgin and was a divorcee, emphasizing his preference for marrying a "simple virgin girl." He also accused the woman of being cunning and emotionally blackmailing him, asserting that she was not even divorced at the time.

Justice Sharma strongly criticized the use of such language and emphasized that employing inappropriate and derogatory language that diminishes the dignity of individuals based on their gender is unacceptable and goes beyond what is considered permissible in legal pleadings.

The court concluded by saying, “The use of infelicitous language transgressing on the character of the woman and to state that her marital status made her lesser than a person or a woman and the marital status of the man in question entitled him to a virgin woman and an unmarried person could not have had a sexual relationship with a woman already married was not only derogatory but an affront to the principles of equality, dignity, and respect.”

Case: Rajan Devi Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr, CRL.M.C. 2159/2020