Following recommendations from non-governmental organizations dedicated to combating human trafficking, the Supreme Court has decided to revise its handbook on gender-specific legal terminology, substituting the term 'sex worker' with more empathetic and respectful language.

The recent updates introduce new terminology such as "trafficking survivor," "women involved in commercial sex work," and "women coerced into commercial sexual exploitation." These changes were prompted by a letter penned by multiple anti-trafficking organizations to Chief Justice of India on August 28 of this year.

The organizations emphasized that using a broad term like "sex worker" might suggest that all women involved in commercial sexual activity do so by their own free and positive choice. Moreover, it overlooks the fact that a significant number of women enter the sex trade through force or fraud and many continue in this profession due to a lack of better alternatives, as stated in a press release.

The handbook will be promptly revised to reflect these changes, as stated by the Registrar.

To challenge stereotypes and common assumptions about women and gender-based minorities, the Supreme Court had published a Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes in August of this year. The introduction to the Handbook, written by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, emphasized the judicial system's responsibility to eliminate its own preconceived notions that perpetuate detrimental stereotypes.

While explaining the need to change the language in legal pleadings and judgments, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) highlighted that there was a previous amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure. This change replaced the term 'pauper' with 'indigent,' not solely for a legal rationale but to acknowledge the humanity of the individuals being referred to.

Likewise, the Handbook highlighted that the utilization of stereotypical language extends beyond legal proceedings and written records, as it perpetuates a culture of indifference, prejudice, and exclusion. The Handbook firmly stated that judgments should not be based on assumptions regarding a woman's character based on her personal choices, such as her clothing or sexual history. It specifically referenced a contentious ruling from a Kerala court to underscore this point.