Live-in judgment: SC's use of word 'keep' upsets addl solicitor-gen

NEW DELHI: India’s first woman additional solicitor general (ASG) Indira Jaising on Friday strongly protested against the use of the words “keep’ ’ and “one-night stand’ ’ in the Supreme Court’s judgment on livein relationships and caustically told its author, Justice Markandey Katju, that it was in very poor taste.

Jaising had an important role in drafting the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was at the core of the judgment given by a bench comprising Justices Katju and T S Thakur on Thursday. While laying down four conditions for a livein relationship to come within the ambit of the DV Act, the bench had said one-night stands, weekend relationships and ‘keeps’ would not qualify as domestic relationships.

It was Justice Katju, in his inimitable style, who provoked Jaising as soon as she stood up to argue a case, by asking: “So Ms Jaising, you are the author of Domestic Violence Act’’ . And that was enough for the ASG to burst out with her objections to gender-biased words used in the judgment.

“Supreme Court judgments are cited across the world . But this one possibly will tell the world that in India, women are regarded as ‘keep’ or ‘rakhels’ . I strongly object to the use of these words in your judgment. I do not expect this from the Supreme Court in the 21st century. I feel offended by it,’’ Jaising said in a single breath.
‘Concubine better than keep?’

As the Indian representative in the UN Committee for Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW ), ASG Indira Jaising had reasons to feel worried about the negative impact the judgment would have in the international forum.

While Justice Katju asked her to focus on the case at hand, reminding her that livein relations and Domestic Violence Act were not the subject matter, Justice Thakur inquired whether use of the word “concubine’’ instead of “keep’’ would have been proper .

Jaisingh was calmer but more distraught after the sparring . She wondered whether the court would have used similar words for men. She drew a comparison of Thursday’s ruling with the famous Visakha judgment of SC. The latter is still the guiding law, even after nearly a decade-and-a-half , to protect women from sexual harassment at the workplace.
She said someone should file an application seeking expunction of these words from the judgment, thus indicating that though she had nothing against the merit of the judgment , her objection was to the use of certain words that described women in a rather derogatatory way.