Not A Human Rights Issue: Apex Court While Dismissing PIL Against Male Pronoun Words In Constitution
The Supreme Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the abolition of the male pronoun words in the Constitution of India. The Constitution uses the words "Chairman", "Deputy Chairman" etc. in numerous articles. The PIL was filed by a law student, Harsh Gupta from Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
The Petitioner appeared in person before the Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
When the matter was called out, the CJI asked the Petitioner, "Why don't you people study in your law school instead of coming here with petitions under Article 32? We should start awarding cost now". "Because our time is wasted", he added.
"You want a writ abolishing the use of male pronoun words in the Constitution? Can we strike down provisions of the Constitution because they use the word Chairman instead of Chairperson?", the CJI asked the Petitioner.
"Some provisions now use the word Chairperson, the recent provisions. The earlier provisions use Chairman. Are we going to strike down Constitutional provisions on that ground?", Justice Chandrachud added.
"My lord, lots of the countries are using...", the Petitioner submitted when he was interrupted. "What's the need for you to take up an issue like this?", Justice Narasimha asked.
"There is nothing.. Human rights or anything like that we should be....", the CJI said continuing, "What fundamental right of yours is violated that you come under Article 32?"
"Article 14, right to equality my lords", the Petitioner replied.
The CJI then said, "Therefore we will strike down the Constitutional provision because it uses Chairman instead of Chairperson? When the Constitution says Chairman, does that mean that a woman will not be appointed? No. Even a woman can be appointed."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition. "Next time we will impose cost for such matters. Focus on your studies", said Justice Narasimha after the matter was dismissed.
Cause Title: Harsh Gupta v. Union of India (WP(c) No. 473/2023)
