The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a law student seeking to abolish the use of “male” pronouns in constitutional provisions. The student argued that the use of male pronouns in the Indian Constitution amounted to gender discrimination and violated fundamental rights.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud expressed his disapproval of the PIL, questioning the petitioner,
“Why didn’t you study in law school instead of coming up here with such PILs?” The CJI further questioned the feasibility of abolishing constitutional provisions containing gender-specific language, noting that newer provisions had already moved towards gender-neutral terms, such as “chairperson.”
The petitioner argued that the use of terms like “chairman” implied a male holder of the position, thereby violating the principle of equality. However, the CJI was not convinced and asked the petitioner whether replacing “chairman” with “chairperson” meant that a woman would not be eligible for the position. CJI Chandrachud asked,
“You’ll abolish constitutional provisions now? Newer provisions do mention “chairperson”. If older provisions mention “chairman”, would a woman not be appointed then? What fundamental right is this violating? Dismissed.”
The bench stated that costs would have been imposed in the matter had the petitioner not been a law student. This case highlights the Supreme Court’s stance on the misuse of the PIL process and its commitment to discouraging frivolous litigation. The court’s decision also underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of legal language and its implications for gender equality.