Towards an Inclusive Gender Just Code in India: Women’s Rights are Non-Negotiable 

This book is available at Amazon 

https://amzn.in/d/gM7XgbQ 

It is regarding the Common Civil Code (the UCC) in India and argues for a feminist-led and women-led reform of personal laws. It rejects any changes that are anti-women. 

It argues that the UCC was initially introduced during the making of the Constitution to create a common legal framework for marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption with a focus on gender equality. 

While it aimed to eliminate harmful practices and promote justice, the inclusion of UCC as a fundamental right was blocked due to potential conflicts with religious freedoms, resulting in its placement as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 

In post-colonial India, family laws remain governed by diverse religious norms. These laws are different for various communities. 

However, over the years, despite difficulties, women from diverse backgrounds have increasingly sought reforms through courts. 

These women-led reforms followed the framework of intersectionality, are progressive, democratic, just, and based on their everyday realities.
Simultaneously, the dominant narrative initiated by political parties and religious leaders has politicized this debate for their vested agendas while suppressing women's voices. This top-down approach, driven by vested interests, seeks to restrict women’s rights. 

This work highlights that the current push for a UCC is coercive, unconstitutional, anti-secular, and anti-women. It forcefully imposes a discriminatory law and lacks a democratic process; therefore, refused by many.

While rejecting this arbitrary law, this work argues that to navigate the complex terrain of religious freedom and gender justice, the family law reforms should be comprehensive, inclusive, consensus-based, progressive, rights-based, uphold a person’s dignity, women-led, and should involve the consent of women from various communities it affects.

 This work suggests that the state should revoke the Uttarakhand UCC law. Instead, the state should facilitate conditions that allow women to exercise their rights through transformative constitutionalism across all communities.

The family law reforms should adhere to democratic norms, constitutional morality, transformative governance, and gender justice. 

Grounded on the concept of women’s autonomy, this work proposes to rewrite a feminist code based on feminist principles of substantive equality, solidarity, acceptability, and respect for community rights while forging unity across diversity—a feminist code written by women, of women, and for women from diverse communities.

It suggests replacing Manusmriti with Mahilasmriti. 

Combating Everyday Gender Stereotypes in the Courtrooms

 The Supreme Court of India recently published a Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, which highlights how gender-unjust terms are used in pleadings, orders, and judgements to reiterate common stereotypes about women and end up denying them justice. It suggests using alternate terms. 

In my article on Combating Everyday Gender Stereotypes in the Courtrooms (https://countercurrents.org/2023/10/combating-everyday-gender-stereotypes-in-the-courtrooms/), I argue that to ensure gender justice, what is required is not only countering and challenging the stereotypes in the day-to-day language deployed in courtrooms but also changing the patriarchal mindset. The war against women started in the minds. 

It emphasizes the need to combat gender stereotypes in courtrooms, arguing that changing language alone isn't enough. While the Supreme Court's Handbook on combating gender-biased terms is a step forward, you stress that a shift in mindset is crucial. Patriarchy manifests in sexism, misogyny, and toxic masculinity, and these biases deeply influence how women are treated in legal proceedings.

You argue that gender justice requires challenging not only the language used but also the patriarchal mindset embedded in the legal system. Courtrooms should be spaces for contesting domination and dismantling entrenched power structures. This requires empathy, gender-sensitive judging, and a commitment to listening to women’s voices.

To achieve true justice, the legal system must deconstruct sexist biases, counter myths and misogyny, and prioritize victim-centered justice, transforming the courtroom into a tool for social change and equality.

The argument presented is a critique of gender stereotyping, particularly within the judicial system, and its harmful effects on women. Below is a summary:

1. The Harmful Effects of Gender Stereotyping:

• Gender stereotyping perpetuates inequalities and reinforces societal discrimination, leading to violations of human rights and depriving women of educational and professional opportunities.

• In patriarchal societies, gender stereotyping marginalizes and subjugates women, beginning from birth and continuing throughout their lives. In extreme cases, this can lead to violence, rape, and other atrocities.

• Despite the progress made through legal decisions in certain cases, such as the decriminalization of homosexuality or recognizing single mothers’ rights, courts in patriarchal setups often uphold patriarchal power structures, denying women justice.

2. Courtrooms as a Space for Reinforcing or Challenging Patriarchy:

• Courtrooms are not neutral spaces but are influenced by the larger patriarchal culture. While there have been some landmark rulings to challenge stereotypes, such as the equal property rights of wives, the majority of court decisions still reinforce male dominance and protect patriarchal power structures.

• Discrimination within the judicial system is visible in the underrepresentation of women in high judicial positions (e.g., only 4% of Supreme Court judges are women), and the failure of courts to ensure justice for the limited number of women who seek it.

3. Gender Stereotyping in Legal Procedures:

• In cases of sexual violence, gender stereotyping is evident in how victims are treated (e.g., victim-blaming, lack of accountability for perpetrators).

• Examples of regressive judgments, such as those in the Mathura or Bhanwari Devi cases, demonstrate how women’s testimonies are often undermined, and consent is twisted to deny justice.

• Courts have also been criticized for forcing rape victims to reconcile with their perpetrators and for perpetuating a culture of impunity that prevents meaningful legal reform.

4. Stereotypes in Domestic and Family Law:

• In cases of domestic violence, dowry harassment, or divorce, courts often rely on harmful stereotypes about women (e.g., the “good wife” vs. “bad wife”) that negatively impact women’s cases.

• The legal system continues to uphold conservative, patriarchal views about women’s roles in marriage and society, often treating women as subordinate to men.

• Courts have been criticized for their handling of issues like hijab bans, reinforcing the idea that women’s bodies are controlled by male-dominated social and legal structures.

5. Judicial Stereotyping and the Denial of Justice:

• Judicial stereotyping, based on preconceived beliefs about women, leads to the denial of justice, especially when judges fail to challenge these negative stereotypes.

• The lack of gender-sensitive training and underrepresentation of women in the judiciary further exacerbates the problem, resulting in miscarriages of justice.

6. Towards Empathetic and Gender-Sensitive Courtrooms:

• To address the root causes of gender injustice, it is essential to adopt an alternate justice framework that centers the voices and experiences of victims and survivors, particularly in sexual violence cases.

• There is a need to enforce international human rights provisions and ensure that judges are committed to principles like equality, impartiality, and fairness, as highlighted by the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

• Increasing gender sensitivity and representation of marginalized groups in the judiciary is crucial to creating an impartial and democratic legal system.

The Call for Transformative Legal Change:

• To combat misogyny, the judiciary must listen empathetically to women’s testimonies, recognize the legitimacy of their claims, and provide timely, gender-sensitive remedies.

• Ending the culture of impunity, dismantling harmful stereotypes, and promoting gender justice is crucial for a more equitable society.

In conclusion, the article advocates for a judicial system that is free from harmful gender stereotypes and ensures that women are treated with dignity and fairness. Only by dismantling these deep-rooted biases and promoting empathy and gender sensitivity in the legal system can true gender justice be achieved.

Society and Law: Reflections on Gender Stereotypes

 

At the Christ University 

With Dr Ranjana Kumari and Dr Rukmani Sen

An Enlightening Experience Amidst Uncertainty

Despite the unexpected tremors and unsettling quakes that shook the day—both literally and metaphorically—the event at Christ University turned out to be an incredibly enriching and thought-provoking experience. I extend my heartfelt thanks to the university for organizing such a powerful and relevant program, even in the face of such unpredictability.

The day began with an opening address by the Director, setting the tone for what would be a deeply reflective session. The ceremonial lighting of the lamp added a sense of solemnity and tradition to the gathering, grounding us in purpose.

Dr. Ranjana Kumari delivered a compelling talk, shedding light on how stereotypes subtly and persistently infiltrate our everyday lives. She also spoke about the recent release of a significant Supreme Court publication, further emphasizing the urgency of addressing these social constructs through legal and institutional lenses.

Professor Rukmini Sen offered a beautifully articulated breakdown of the often-overlapping concepts of stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, humiliation, and atrocities. Her insights into how each of these plays out in society—and how the law interacts with them—were especially enlightening. She masterfully connected these ideas with real-world implications, sparking critical reflection among all attendees.

Adding a legal perspective, Dr. Shalu Nigam explored how gendered stereotypes manifest within courtroom practices, shaping narratives and often distorting justice. She noted several cases to depict how stereotypes operate daily within the courtrooms and how the misogynist norms deeply impact gender justice. Her analysis was not just informative but also deeply unsettling, challenging to rethink the objectivity we often associate with the legal system.

A sincere thank you to Dr. Kusum Lata (Sociology, NCR), Dr. Prabha Zacharias, Dr. Sandeep Singh, Dr. Niharika Arora, and the entire team of faculty and student coordinators for their dedication in organizing this event. Their efforts ensured that the program continued seamlessly, despite the unexpected disruptions.

This session was not just an academic exercise—it was a call to awareness, introspection, and action. Grateful to have been part of a space that inspires meaningful dialogue and dares to confront uncomfortable truths.

Justice Dies Every Day in the Courtrooms

 

The death of a client is always difficult. But when that death also marks the quiet burial of justice, the loss feels deeper, more systemic, more damning. That is true when the litigant is a woman who has been fighting for justice for a long time. 

Recently, I lost a client. She had been fighting her case for over two decades. She was a seasoned journalist—dignified, articulate, and principled. She had joined a prominent media company many years ago, only to face a fate that countless working women still endure in silence: sexual harassment by senior management.

From Courage to Punishment

Unlike many, she refused to be silenced. She chose to speak up, file a complaint, and challenge those in power. This occurred long before the # MeToo movement. Additionally, at the time, the POSH law had not been enacted.

But the misogynist environment persisted, and instead of receiving protection or support, she was punished. The company suspended the victim, while the perpetrators retained their positions. It was a clear act of institutional retaliation.

She took the matter to the labour court. After a long and difficult legal battle, the court ruled in her favour. It directed the company to reinstate her and pay her full back wages. The judgment validated her ordeal and reinforced the principle that justice, though delayed, could still be delivered.

Weaponizing the Legal Process

But the company had no intention of complying. Instead, it filed an appeal before the High Court—an appeal not grounded in strong legal arguments, but in a delay strategy. Over the years, the management's legal team employed every procedural tactic available to stall the case.

They filed extensive documents—not to clarify the matter, but to create complexity. They sought repeated adjournments, frequently citing trivial or manufactured reasons. When that wasn't enough, they filed an application to summon records from the labour court, further slowing proceedings.

This wasn’t litigation. It was legal suffocation.

A System That Outlives the Victims and Survivors 

Meanwhile, my client aged. Time, stress, and uncertainty took their toll. She refused to accept the company’s meager compensation offers—insulting amounts meant to silence, not settle.

But justice never arrived.

She died while the case was still pending.

No reinstatement. No compensation. No closure. Just a thick case file buried somewhere in the High Court registry—another statistic in a system that too often allows the powerful to outlast the powerless.

The Broader Failure

This case is not an anomaly. It’s a symptom of a larger malaise within our judicial process. While courts remain the last resort for the oppressed, they have become too accessible for those seeking only to delay, dilute, or derail justice.

Procedural laws intended to ensure fairness are routinely weaponized. Adjournments are granted too freely. Cases involving vulnerable litigants are allowed to linger until those litigants no longer remain alive to see the outcome.

In this system, justice doesn’t just get delayed—it gets destroyed.

Conclusion: A Call for Urgency

As legal professionals, we must ask ourselves—how many more must die waiting? How long can we accept this as “just the way it is”? The law is meant to protect, to remedy, and to deter—not to become an instrument of exhaustion.

With the death of my client, a woman who fought bravely for her dignity and rights, a small piece of justice also died. But let it not be in vain. Let it serve as a call to reform the system, to restore efficiency, compassion, and urgency to our courts.

Because justice that arrives too late is justice denied—and, all too often, justice buried.

Why has the process of justice become particularly difficult for women survivors, especially in cases of sexual harassment, assault, or discrimination?

Why do the Indian courts fail to recognize the dynamics of SLAPP suits? 

Millions of women are fighting for justice. Despite facing various odds such as the high cost of litigation, difficult access to justice, social stigma, societal pressure, the fear of losing their job, and so on, the women are striving hard. And yet, the courts, the legal system, and society failed them. This is tragic. Why has the system failed to recognize the odds that women survivors face? 

 How the courts failed gender justice 

The Basic Premise Behind Domestic Violence Remains Unchallenged

Domestic Violence in India is premised on several notions such as 

1) The marital relationship is hierarchical and inegalitarian. Women are accorded a low status within a marriage and the family whereas a man is considered a master of the household 

2) The husband and his family have the authority to beat the wife besides demanding dowry. Chastisement is a prerogative granted to a husband who can commit violence against a wife in the guise of love and discipline. 

3) A violent husband is not made accountable even if he brutally murders the woman. The law grants immunity to violent husbands even if the husband is a drunkard, vile, or criminal.  

4) The family is a private realm and no one and not even the law should interfere with the privacy of such an institution. Domestic harmony is prioritized over violence against women. 

5) The doctrine of marital unity as propounded by Blackstone persists which prevents law framers and implementers to see complainant wives as separate persons or a citizen demanding protection under the law. 

6) Courts are expected to uphold constitutional values instead they are enforcing the family ideology 

7) The law has been used symbolically and superficially to address violence issues but no steps have been taken to address the root cause, for instance, the dowry law has failed to eliminate dowry or address dowry-related violence 

8) The legal discourse focused on blaming the victim, stigmatizing her, and penalizing women for not `adjusting’ within families  

9) Due to the backlash, the focus is shifting away from reality from `bad men’ who are battering or burning their wives to `bad or terrible women’ who are misusing the law. 

Most of these premises are never questioned even in a court of law. The law does not utilize the principles of rationality while adjudicating the claims of battered or murdered wives. It legitimizes and reiterates social inequalities within the institution of marriage.

 A few attempts have been made to change the approach and the attitude of law implementers to see women as partners and citizens with equal rights. Legal reforms could not make a dent in the construction of women’s `natural’ position within the existing power structure that creates the everyday reality of their life within and outside the family. Additionally, the justice system is a part and parcel of a larger patriarchal society where the system is corrupt and inefficient. Courts used both the logic relating to chastisement prerogative and marital privacy while prosecuting men in cases of wife beating. Language of hierarchy, love, and discipline is used to protect violent men and the tropes of both hierarchy and interiority are used to cover bias in the hierarchical marriage arrangements. The regime of immunity is utilized to justify brutal violence while utilizing the dimensions of feelings and domestic space.  

 

The Justice System Has Failed to Meet the Changing Needs of the Society

Analysis of spates of judgments shows that women are being tortured, brutalized, burned alive, murdered, or forced to commit suicide yet, tragically, the current judicial discourse focuses on misuse or abuse of law by women. The cases relating to dowry deaths, murders of wives, the suicide of women in marriage, and domestic violence, found little space either in the media. No sensitivity is being displayed when a wife dies rather such cases are being normalized and trivialized and what is prioritized is fake concerns raised by fragile masculinity, probably because women’s concerns are no longer deemed relevant by the patriarchal society. Dowry deaths have been highlighted during the decade of the 80s and the laws have been reformed then, however, no monitoring or follow-up has been done to ensure that the system of dowry coercion is eliminated. Similarly, domestic violence cases are being reported in increasing numbers, yet no accountability has been fixed to ensure that actions could be taken to monitor the situation. The system has not devised ways to monitor the situation if the police are following the procedures or conducting the investigation seriously.  The criminal justice system has failed to respond to the changing situation. Similarly, civil law ignores the realities of women’s lives. Perhaps, the state is not willing to accept the agency of women challenging and defying patriarchal norms. Yet, with the existence of a strong constitutional paradigm besides advancement in terms of education, awareness, and enhanced aspirations, women are challenging the conventional stereotype and are defying age-old norms. However, once women enter the courtrooms, they face similar patriarchal restrictions which they have been dealing with outside the court spaces. The courts and investigative agencies dominated by men have failed to transform at the same pace and this lag in expectations of women and working of state is creating complications. The need, therefore, is to renovate the mindset and attitude of the state toward women’s concerns.

Excerpt from my book Women and Domestic Violence Law in India: A Quest for Justice (2019) Routledge