Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging use of ‘male terminology’ in constitutional provisions like the use of “Chairman” instead of “Chairperson”

On Tuesday, the 4th of July, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 32 challenging the use of male terminology in the Constitution of India. The two judge-bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha criticised the petitioner and advised the counsel to focus on studies.

Chief Justice asked whether the petitioner really thought that constitutional provisions should be struck down for such reasons. The court also expressed dissatisfaction over such petitions filed under Article 32. 

CJI: You really think constitutional provisions should be struck down for such reasons..

Advocate: It is violation of Article 14..

Justice Narasimha: Please study in your law school properly..#SupremeCourtofIndia

— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) July 4, 2023

The bench also warned that if this continues, the court will have to start imposing costs on the petitioners.    

CJI said, “Why don’t you study in law schools rather than filing such petitions? We have to start imposing costs. You want us to strike down male pronouns in the Constitution? Chairman etc usage. We have to strike down constitutional provisions since it does not say, chairperson.” 

[Plea to do away with Sections using male pronouns used in the Constitution of India]

CJI DY Chandrachud: Why do not you study in law schools rather than filing such petitions? we have to start imposing costs..
you want us to strike down male pronouns in the Constitution?… pic.twitter.com/JN7qNtsSx1

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 4, 2023

CJI asked the petitioner what is the basis of the petition and what fundamental rights are being violated with this. When the petitioner claimed that the usage of male terminology violates Article 14, right to equality as chairman means, CJI interjected. The Honourable Court highlighted that the usage of terminology like chairman does not bar women from occupying that esteemed post. 

CJI said, “So what? A woman cannot be appointed? The chairman also means a woman can be appointed.”

CJI: you tell us what is the fundamental right violation?

Petitioner: this is violation of equality.. people understand.. chairman means ..

CJI: So what? a woman cannot be appointed? Chairman also means a woman can be appointed. Dismissed. #SupremeCourtofIndia

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 4, 2023

After giving a warning and advising the petitioner to focus on studies, the apex court dismissed the petition.   

It is important to note that Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allows any individual to directly approach the Supreme Court or the High Courts in case of violation of their fundamental rights.