Use Of Inappropriate And Derogatory Language In Legal Pleadings Undermines Dignity Of Individual And Is Not Within Permissible Bounds Of Language: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that the use of inappropriate and derogatory phrases in legal pleadings undermines the dignity of individuals and falls beyond the permissible bounds of language expected in such pleadings.
The Court disposed of a Criminal Petition challenging the bail order of the Respondent passed by the Trial Court. The Court emphasized that while strong language may be necessary to further the cause of justice, legal practitioners should always maintain a dignified tone and not cross the line into offensiveness.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Having gone through the contents of counter-affidavit filed on record on behalf of accused/respondent no. 2, this Court is of the opinion that use of inappropriate and derogatory language, undermining the dignity of individuals, based on their gender, falls beyond the permissible bounds of language expected in legal pleadings”.
“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 sexual relationship with a woman already married was not only derogatory but affront to the principles of equality, dignity and respect”, the Court noted.
Advocate Tarun Gupta appeared for the Petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner/Complainant, a single businesswoman of two children, filed an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), alleging that Respondent no 2 had committed rape upon her on the false pretext of marriage and had cheated her. However, the Trial Court allowed the bail application of Respondent no 2. The Petitioner approached the Court by way of a Criminal Petition, challenging the bail order of the Trial Court.
The Court held that while granting or denying bail, the courts are bound to pass a reasoned order but are not required to decide the case's merits. The Court emphasized that when the issues in question are still under investigation, regarding which evidence is yet to be collected by the prosecution, it would be a dangerous trend to give a categorical opinion at the stage of granting anticipatory bail.
The Court reviewed the Counter Affidavit submitted by Respondent no 2 and observed that it contained inappropriate and offensive language. The Court emphasized the importance of utilizing gender-sensitive language in all legal pleadings. Therefore, the Court, while referring to the Supreme Court’s ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ reiterated that it is the responsibility of legal practitioners to be cautious of the language they use in their documents and refrain from using derogatory, offensive, or gender-stereotyped language.
“In this regard, this Court is also of the opinion that use of such language in the pleadings goes against the basic minimum standard expected for promoting a gender just environment as has been also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by releasing the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ which aims to assist judges and the legal community in identifying, understating, and combating stereotypes about women which may be used while drafting pleadings as well as orders and judgments”, the Court noted.
The Court observed that while lawyers may use strong language to present their clients' cases, that does not justify offensive, abusive, disrespectful, derogatory, or misogynistic language. The Court emphasized that while strong language may be necessary to further the cause of justice, it should always maintain a dignified tone and not cross the line into offensiveness.
The Court issued the following guidelines, “i. The Trial Courts at the time of passing orders on bail applications or Revisionist Courts while adjudicating upon the orders challenged before them, must add a paragraph in their orders/judgments that conveys that nothing expressed in the said order/judgment shall be construed as expression of opinion of the Court on the merits of the case, so that there is no confusion to the learned Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the case.
ii. Similarly, at the time of passing orders in other miscellaneous applications or revision petitions, which may not finally dispose of the case, a similar paragraph may be added in the order/judgment for the above-mentioned reason.
iii. Even otherwise, Trial Courts should desist generally from passing remarks which have tendency to be treated as the final conclusion on an issue in question, at the stage of grant of bail itself when the chargesheet is yet to be filed by the prosecution”.
The Court noted that there were no valid grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title: Rajan Devi v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr