‘Too Harvard-oriented’: Why Supreme Court is revisiting its guide on gender stereotypes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to move beyond the text of the “Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes”, a guide issued in 2023 under the tenure of former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. This marks a potential shift in how the judiciary approaches gender sensitivity. While the 2023 document was designed to help judges identify and avoid patriarchal language, the current CJI, Surya Kant, has found the text to be overly academic and disconnected from the ground realities faced by litigants. He has now emphasised the need for practical training in this regard. The Supreme Court’s observations came as it was hearing a suo motu case regarding an Allahabad High Court judgment delivered on March 17, 2025. The High Court had ruled that acts such as “grabbing the breasts” and loosening the pyjama string of a female victim constituted only a “preparation” to commit rape, rather than an “attempt” to rape. The High Court’s distinction between preparation and attempt had sparked widespread criticism for its apparent insensitivity. The Supreme Court had taken cognisance of this judgment last year, ordering a stay and expressing concern over the judicial approach. On Tuesday, a bench comprising CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria formally set aside the High Court’s verdict and directed the trial court to proceed against the accused under attempt to rape charges. A pivot towards institutional training During the hearing, the 2023 handbook’s utility in preventing such insensitive judgments came under scrutiny. The bench opined that the existing handbook offered forensic meanings to various aspects of sexual assault. In legal parlance, a “forensic meaning” implies a technical, scientific or strictly clinical interpretation – the implication was that this may not align with the lived experience or understanding of a survivor of sexual violence or a common person. CJI Kant remarked that the handbook was “too Harvard-oriented”, suggesting it was too elite or theoretical for the Indian context. CJI Chandrachud received his master’s and doctorate in law from Harvard Law School. CJI Kant added that issuing a handbook to “sermonise” High Court judges while sitting in the Supreme Court “serves no purpose”. The bench has pivoted towards institutional training, directing the National Judicial Academy (NJA) in Bhopal to form a committee of domain experts, academics, and lawyers to frame new guidelines for the practical training of judges that would form part of the NJA’s study material. The court noted that High Court judges should be trained in batches at the NJA, once the guidelines were finalised, to handle the sensitivities of sexual assault cases effectively. Senior advocates Shobha Gupta and H S Phoolka have been roped in to assist in fine-tuning these new guidelines. ## What the 2023 handbook contained The handbook now being revisited is a 35-page guide released in August 2023, intended to identify and remove gender stereotypes from judicial reasoning. In his foreword, then CJI Chandrachud had written that “language is critical to the life of the law” and that relying on stereotypes “distort[s] the law’s application to women in harmful ways”. The handbook was structured to address two main areas: the language used in courts and the reasoning patterns used by judges. The first part of the handbook contained a glossary that flagged “stereotype promoting language” – labelled “Incorrect” – and provided “alternative language” – labelled “Preferred”. The document notes that words often convey archaic, patriarchal ideas. For instance, it advised judges to stop using the word “adulteress”, suggesting instead the phrase “woman who has engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage”. It sought to replace the colloquial term “eve teasing” with the legal term “street sexual harassment”. Other changes included replacing “child prostitute” with “child who has been trafficked”, and “housewife” with “homemaker”. It also advised against using terms that judge a woman’s morality, such as “fallen woman”, “harlot”, “seductress” and “woman of easy virtue”, suggesting instead the use of the word “woman”. Regarding the terms “survivor” and “victim”, the handbook clarified that both are applicable but the individual’s preference should be respected. Beyond vocabulary, the handbook also attempted to dismantle common assumptions made by judges during trials, particularly in sexual offence cases. It categorised these into stereotypes based on “inherent characteristics”, “gender roles”, and “sexual violence”. Under inherent characteristics, the handbook rebutted the idea that women are “overly emotional, illogical, and cannot take decisions”, stating that a person’s gender does not determine their rational capacity. It also challenged the notion that “all women want to have children” and that “young women are incapable of taking important decisions about their lives”, clarifying that parenthood is an individual choice and all adults are deemed capable of life decisions. Regarding gender roles, the handbook addressed the assumption that women who work outside the home are negligent mothers or that women should be submissive to men. It stated that the Constitution guarantees equal rights and that women are neither subordinate nor required to be submissive. The section on sexual violence addressed how evidence is appreciated in rape trials. It explicitly stated that a woman’s choice of clothing or her consumption of alcohol or cigarettes does not amount to an invitation for sexual relations. It also countered the judicial tendency to disbelieve a victim if she did not physically resist, noting that the absence of physical injuries does not mean consent was given, as perpetrators often use fear and intimidation to overpower victims. The 2023 handbook supported its directives on rejecting stereotypes by citing several Supreme Court decisions – such as State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh (1996), which established that a survivor’s testimony is inherently credible, and State of Jharkhand v Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022), which banned the “two-finger test”.