A case for gender neutrality
Published on: 19 February 2023, 08:35 am
There is no harm in adopting gender-neutral words for addressing judges in every court. But the Supreme Court must lead by example.
—–
I joined the Bar about fifty years ago. One of the first lessons that I received was to always be courteous. My colleagues were 'my learned friend' or 'my learned senior' or just 'my friend'. Magistrates and judges in district courts were to be addressed as 'your Honour'. There was never any difficulty. These are gender-neutral words that could be used for anyone.
After a two-year stint practising in district courts, I joined the Allahabad High Court. I was told to refer to the judges as 'your lordship', a polite way of saying 'you'; and to use 'my lord' so as to draw the attention of the judge towards yourself or what you were about to say. We were to begin submissions by saying, 'May it please your lordship'. For lady judges, one was supposed to use 'ladyship' or 'lady' at the proper place. However, I never got an opportunity to use it, as there were no lady judges at that time! In later years, there was one, but she sat in the Lucknow bench. Consequently, I never got an opportunity to address a lady judge.
As a judge, we referred to each other as 'brothers' or 'sisters' — again very commonly used words; and there was no difficulty. But all of this changed with my second stint as a lawyer at the Supreme Court. I get confused when addressing a bench consisting of judges of different sexes. It irritates me when I hear lawyers use the word 'brother' or 'sister' for their colleagues instead of the gender neutral word 'friend'. There is no reason to copy judges or step backwards.
Even cricket, which used to be called the 'Gentleman's Game', has updated its terminology to 'batter' from 'batsman'. Many in the film world have dropped the word 'actress' for the gender-neutral 'actor'. Why can't we in the judiciary do so?