It states, "The biases often hidden in one's mind are the enemy of a fair gender-balanced and equitable decision."
Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma noted the importance of addressing hidden biases, saying they are antithetical to fair and equitable decisions.
The Court stressed the need to extend judicial education beyond lega principles and urged a deeper understanding of diverse backgrounds and lived realities.
“Judges have an enormous responsibility to ensure that every person, regardless of gender, is entitled to fair treatment under the law. It is important for judges not to forget that the idea of being gender neutral when rendering judgment not only means that the terminology and words used in the judgment should be gender neutral, but it also means that the mind of the judge must be gender neutral .Be free from preconceived notions or prejudices on the basis of gender or profession,” the court order read.
The judge overturned the trial court's decision acquitting a husband and his family members of the offense under sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, noting that the decision was inconsistent with the complainant's profession as a police officer. Was unduly influenced by stereotypes about.
The court said, "The present case of a woman police officer, who is considered incapable of being victimized merely because of her profession, is an example of the insidious nature of our hidden prejudices."
Justice Sharma further said in his judgment that especially as a judge holding that a woman, by virtue of her profession as a police officer, cannot possibly suffer in her personal or marital life, is itself It is a form of injustice in the first place and one of the highest types of distortions that can be seen in a decision.
Justice Sharma said the objective of judicial training should be to promote broad understanding of diverse perspectives and experiences.The court said such initiatives would enable judges to deliver more informed and equitable judgments, thereby enhancing public trust and confidence in the legal system.
The decision urged the Director (Academics) of Delhi Judicial Academy to take necessary action to implement these directions.
Furthermore, the court cautioned against basing decisions on hidden or explicit biases, as this could undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
“It is important for all concerned to understand the difference between legal education and judicial education. While legal education imparts knowledge of law, judicial education hones the skills required for judicious application of these laws while deciding cases,” the judge said.The Court stressed the imperative for judges to be impartial and focused on the merits of each case, free from gender bias or professional stereotypes.
It called upon judicial academies to conduct awareness and sensitization programs to ensure that judges write judgments that maintain gender neutrality, impartiality and equality.
Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma noted the importance of addressing hidden biases, saying they are antithetical to fair and equitable decisions.
The Court stressed the need to extend judicial education beyond lega principles and urged a deeper understanding of diverse backgrounds and lived realities.
“Judges have an enormous responsibility to ensure that every person, regardless of gender, is entitled to fair treatment under the law. It is important for judges not to forget that the idea of being gender neutral when rendering judgment not only means that the terminology and words used in the judgment should be gender neutral, but it also means that the mind of the judge must be gender neutral .Be free from preconceived notions or prejudices on the basis of gender or profession,” the court order read.
The judge overturned the trial court's decision acquitting a husband and his family members of the offense under sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, noting that the decision was inconsistent with the complainant's profession as a police officer. Was unduly influenced by stereotypes about.
The court said, "The present case of a woman police officer, who is considered incapable of being victimized merely because of her profession, is an example of the insidious nature of our hidden prejudices."
Justice Sharma further said in his judgment that especially as a judge holding that a woman, by virtue of her profession as a police officer, cannot possibly suffer in her personal or marital life, is itself It is a form of injustice in the first place and one of the highest types of distortions that can be seen in a decision.
Justice Sharma said the objective of judicial training should be to promote broad understanding of diverse perspectives and experiences.The court said such initiatives would enable judges to deliver more informed and equitable judgments, thereby enhancing public trust and confidence in the legal system.
The decision urged the Director (Academics) of Delhi Judicial Academy to take necessary action to implement these directions.
Furthermore, the court cautioned against basing decisions on hidden or explicit biases, as this could undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
“It is important for all concerned to understand the difference between legal education and judicial education. While legal education imparts knowledge of law, judicial education hones the skills required for judicious application of these laws while deciding cases,” the judge said.The Court stressed the imperative for judges to be impartial and focused on the merits of each case, free from gender bias or professional stereotypes.
It called upon judicial academies to conduct awareness and sensitization programs to ensure that judges write judgments that maintain gender neutrality, impartiality and equality.
