The Lift Line
“Calling it parenting time recognizes a simple truth that no parent is a visitor in the life of a child.” (Karnataka High Court, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, interim order, September 2026)
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
In the news: on 22 October 2026, The Hindu carried an op-ed by Priyamvadha Shivaji, Senior Resident Fellow, Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, arguing that judicial sensitivity takes more than replacing one word with another.
Her two reference points are background to the column, not news of the day: a Karnataka High Court order of 29 September 2026 directing courts to say “parenting time” instead of “visitation”, and the Supreme Court’s report Judgments and Gender, released in August 2026, which followed its 2023 Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes. Together they let an aspirant answer a question that recurs in GS2 and GS4: can courts make justice gender-sensitive by changing their words, and if not, what else is needed?
GS Paper 2: structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary; mechanisms for the protection of vulnerable sections. GS Paper 1: role of women; social empowerment. GS Paper 4: empathy and compassion towards the weaker sections; attitude and its influence on conduct.
The Crux in 60 Words
Courts have started to clean up their language: the Supreme Court issued a Handbook in 2023 and a report on Judgments and Gender in 2026, and the Karnataka High Court has replaced “visitation” with “parenting time”. Shivaji welcomes this but argues that swapping words is not sensitivity. Judges must examine the assumptions behind words, and a more representative Bench is needed to spot them.
Priyamvadha Shivaji argues that the Karnataka High Court’s direction to use ‘parenting time’ in place of ‘visitation’ is a welcome step, but that judicial sensitivity cannot come from swapping one term for another: judges must examine the assumptions behind words, and the Bench must become more representative.
- The Supreme Court has produced two sets of guidance on gendered language: the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes (16 August 2023) and the report Judgments and Gender (August 2026), which followed its suo motu judgment of 10 February 2026 on an Allahabad High Court order in a POCSO case.
- The Karnataka High Court’s order of 29 September 2026 directs all Family Courts and courts dealing with guardianship (G&WC) matters to say ‘parenting time’ instead of ‘visitation’, because ‘no parent is a visitor in the life of a child’.
- Shivaji argues that training, handbooks and international frameworks such as the 2022 Bangkok General Guidance have not been very successful, because sensitivity cannot be brought in by memorising terms.
- In her reading, the ‘visitor’ label rests on the assumption that mothers are the natural parents, so fathers must be cast as active parents beyond the payment of maintenance.
Renaming can be cosmetic: the outcome of a custody case turns on the welfare of the child, not on the label for a parent’s time, and the statutes themselves still speak of ‘custody’ and ‘guardian’ and, in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, name the father first as natural guardian. Guidance can also miss its audience, as the CJI’s reported remark that the 2023 Handbook was ‘too Harvard-oriented’ suggests.
Pair new vocabulary with reasons that judges can apply; build gender, disability, caste and tribal contexts into judicial training as reasoning, not word lists; follow up court directions with circulars and review of how they are used; and work towards meaningful representation of women and diverse communities on the Bench, as Shivaji urges.
Background and Context
How the Supreme Court came to its 2026 report
| Date | What happened | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 16 August 2023 | The Supreme Court releases the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, announced by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud | LiveLaw, same day |
| 17 March 2025 | A single judge of the Allahabad High Court modifies a summons order of the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj | Supreme Court judgment of 10 February 2026 |
| 10 February 2026 | In a suo motu writ petition (2026 INSC 165), a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria sets aside that judgment, restores the original summons and requests the National Judicial Academy (NJA), Bhopal, through its Director, former Supreme Court Judge Aniruddha Bose, to constitute a Committee of Experts | Supreme Court judgment |
| 3 August 2026 | The Supreme Court releases “Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments”, prepared by a five-member expert committee chaired by former Justice Aniruddha Bose; the CJI approved it and directed all courts to follow its recommendations | LiveLaw, 18 August 2026 |
Shivaji dates to February the CJI’s criticism of the 2023 Handbook. SC Observer reports that CJI Surya Kant dismissed it as “too Harvard-oriented” and said that it “may not be understood by the rape survivor, her relatives or commoners”.
What the 2026 report contains
- Committee: former Justice Aniruddha Bose (Director, NJA) as Chairperson, with Justice Sonia G. Gokani, Anuradha Shankar, Dr Surat Singh and Prof. Lucy T.V. Zehol. The report says it “has been made in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”.
- Structure: its contents run from “Context” through “Gendered/Stereotype Language in Judgments and Alternatives” to “Compassionate Court Practices”.
- The sample: “the committee analyzed 125 Trial Court judgments from across the country”, which “gave a mixed picture about the perceptions and mind-set” of judges; of the more sensitive judgments it wrote that they “reflect a modern, gender-sensitive judicial approach”.
- The warnings: it records that “Judicial attitudes in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women have often reproduced “rape myths””, and notes that international guidance, including the 2022 Bangkok General Guidance, directs judges to “avoid rigid notions of a “real victim””.
- Handbook to report: LiveLaw summed up the shift: “The 2023 handbook identified problematic language. The 2026 report identifies problematic courtroom behaviour.” The report itself does not say whether it replaces the 2023 Handbook, and commentators have raised the question (SC Observer: “If this Report seeks to overturn the Handbook”).
What the Karnataka High Court did
- The case: a writ petition by a mother (WP 26958/2026) against an order of 7 August 2026 by a trial court in Bangalore Rural in a guardianship (G&WC) case. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, sitting singly, passed an interim order on 29 September 2026.
- The interim relief: the High Court stayed the trial court’s order till the next date, 15 October 2026, and allowed the father parenting time on 2 and 3 October 2026.
- The direction: “Henceforth, all Family Courts and courts dealing with G&WC matters shall use the term “parenting time” in place of “visitation”.” (G&WC: cases under the Guardians and Wards Act.)
- Follow-up: the Registrar General is to communicate the order to all Family Courts and courts dealing with G&WC matters and “issue a circular in this regard”.
- The order also notes that “The Karnataka High Court has adopted the joint parenting plan”.
The Bangkok General Guidance (background)
The Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on Applying a Gender Perspective in South and Southeast Asia is published by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). Its first edition was adopted in Bangkok on 24-25 June 2016 by judges from Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Timor Leste, at a meeting organised by the ICJ and UN Women. The current version, dated May 2022, was launched at a regional judicial dialogue held in the Maldives in May 2022.
The Analysis
Shivaji’s argument moves from a welcome step to a deeper demand.
1. A welcome step, but a narrow one. She calls the Karnataka direction “a welcome step in furthering the conversation around sensitive judicial language”, one that recognises that parenting “is not a responsibility that can be easily abdicated”. But such steps, she argues, “continue to remain limited and context-specific, rather than becoming widespread judicial initiatives”.
2. Insensitivity persists. “For every instance of the judiciary displaying empathy,” she writes, “multiple instances of insensitivity continue to persist.” Her example, and the context of the 2026 report, is the one the Supreme Court itself took up: the Allahabad High Court’s 2025 POCSO judgment, set aside on 10 February 2026.
3. Training and word lists have not been enough. Judges have been sent for training at judicial academies and asked to study the recommended language in the Handbooks and in international frameworks such as the Bangkok General Guidance. In Shivaji’s words, “Past attempts to introduce gender sensitivity have clearly not been very successful.” The reason, as she puts it: “Sensitivity cannot be brought in by memorising and using specific terminology.”
4. Why “no parent is a visitor” matters. The line looks like a simple, gender-neutral truth. Shivaji reads it against what she calls patriarchal expectations: the general assumption that mothers are the more natural parents, so that custody falls on them, and norms such as the idea that mothers “take care” while fathers “babysit”. The reminder that fathers are “not merely ‘visitors’” but active parents “beyond the payment of maintenance” works, she says, because it confronts that assumption instead of only renaming it.
5. Examine assumptions, not just terms. “Words have meanings which cannot be separated from their social contexts.” The aim, she argues, should be “to examine underlying assumptions and identify areas where a feminist gaze would confront these biases and lead to a different conclusion, upholding substantive equality”. She cites the Feminist Judgments Project as an effort in this direction.
6. Who sits on the Bench, and what else is missed. This, Shivaji writes, “requires meaningful representation of women and other diverse communities on the Bench”. She widens the lens beyond gender: well-meant efforts on access for persons with disabilities that still dismiss “dignity and individuality”, and gaps in understanding “caste or tribal socio-historical realities”.
The law’s own words. A useful addition for the exam: the vocabulary the courts are reforming is partly their own. The statutes speak of “guardian” and “custody”; “visitation” appears in neither the Guardians and Wards Act nor the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The statute keeps its own order, though: Section 6 of the 1956 Act names the father, “and after him, the mother” as natural guardian, while placing a child under five ordinarily in the mother’s custody.
| Term | Where it comes from | What it implies |
|---|---|---|
| Guardian, custody | Statute (Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956) | Who has legal charge of the minor and the minor’s person |
| Visitation | Court practice (not in either Act) | The parent without custody as a visitor |
| Parenting time | Karnataka High Court direction, 29 September 2026 | Both parents as parents; “no parent is a visitor” |
| Joint parenting plan | Adopted by the Karnataka High Court, as its order notes | Shared parenting arrangements |
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
The Supreme Court’s guidance:
- Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes: released 16 August 2023, under CJI D.Y. Chandrachud.
- Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments: a report released in August 2026 (3 August, per LiveLaw).
- The committee: five members, chaired by former Justice Aniruddha Bose, Director of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal.
- The sample: 125 trial court judgments from across the country.
The cases (background):
- Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1 of 2025, 2026 INSC 165: decided 10 February 2026; CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria.
- What it set aside: an Allahabad High Court judgment of 17 March 2025 modifying a POCSO summons order (Kasganj).
- Karnataka High Court, WP 26958/2026: interim order of 29 September 2026, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti.
The statutes:
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Act 8 of 1890): in force 1 July 1890; Section 17: the court is guided by the welfare of the minor.
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: in addition to the 1890 Act (Section 2); minor = under 18 (Section 4).
- HMGA Section 6: father, and after him the mother, is natural guardian; a child under five ordinarily in the mother’s custody.
- HMGA Section 13: the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration.
International:
- Bangkok General Guidance (May 2022): International Commission of Jurists; first edition adopted in Bangkok in June 2016.
⚠️ Watch the trap: the 2023 document is a Handbook; the 2026 document is a report titled Judgments and Gender. “Visitation” is court usage, found in neither the 1890 Act nor the 1956 Act. The Karnataka direction came in an interim order in a writ petition, not a final custody ruling. Under the 1956 Act, welfare is the “paramount consideration” (Section 13); under the 1890 Act the court is “guided by” welfare (Section 17).
The Debate
The case for changing the words. Words carry assumptions, and court orders are read by the parties, by lawyers and by lower courts. “Visitation” tells one parent that the child’s life is not theirs; “parenting time” says the opposite. The Supreme Court has itself acted twice, in 2023 and 2026, and a direction to every Family Court and guardianship court in a State reaches every such case in the State at little cost.
The other side. A new label does not change the test a court applies, which remains the welfare of the minor, nor the outcome for the child. The statutes keep their own vocabulary of custody and natural guardianship, with the father named first in the 1956 Act. Guidance can also miss its audience: the CJI’s reported complaint that the 2023 Handbook was “too Harvard-oriented” and might not be understood by a survivor shows that the drafting of guidance matters as much as its content. And one interim order in one High Court, as Shivaji concedes, is “limited and context-specific”.
The balanced verdict. Both sides agree that words alone are not enough; they differ on whether words are worth changing at all. They are, as a start: a term that casts a parent as a visitor, or a survivor as a “real victim” only if she fits a stereotype, shapes reasoning. But the change sticks only when judges are trained to examine assumptions, directions are followed up, and the Bench reflects the society it judges.
How to Think About This
Use a four-step “word, assumption, outcome, structure” lens for any question on judicial language or gender sensitivity:
- Word: which term is in question? (“visitation”, “real victim”)
- Assumption: what does it take for granted? (that one parent is a guest; that a survivor must behave a certain way)
- Outcome: does the assumption change a decision, such as custody, bail, credibility or sentence?
- Structure: what must change for the fix to last: the statute, judicial training, follow-up by the High Court, or who sits on the Bench?
The same lens works for disability, caste and tribal questions, which Shivaji says the judiciary’s conversation must also take in.
Diagram-in-Words
Beyond swapping words: judicial language and gender
Covers the Supreme Court’s two documents, the Karnataka High Court’s direction and the author’s case for examining assumptions.
Gender-sensitive language in judgments is necessary but not sufficient for gender justice. Discuss with reference to recent initiatives of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. (250 words)
Judicial language shapes how litigants, especially women and children, experience justice. The Supreme Court’s Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes (2023), its report Judgments and Gender (2026) and the Karnataka High Court’s 2026 direction to use ‘parenting time’ in place of ‘visitation’ show that courts recognise this, but word lists alone have limits.
Why language matters. A term carries an assumption: calling a parent’s time with a child ‘visitation’ casts that parent as a visitor.
The Karnataka High Court put it plainly in its order of 29 September 2026: no parent is a visitor in the life of a child. The Supreme Court’s suo motu judgment of 10 February 2026, which set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment of 17 March 2025 in a POCSO case, led to an expert committee under the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal; its report, which analysed 125 trial court judgments, notes that judicial attitudes in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women have often reproduced rape myths.
Why it is not enough. Courts already decide custody on the welfare of the minor (Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956), yet the statutes keep their own vocabulary of custody and natural guardianship.
Training and handbooks have not removed stereotyped reasoning, and guidance written for experts may not reach survivors or trial judges. Sensitivity has to change how a judge reasons about care, consent and credibility, not just which words appear in the order.
Gender-sensitive language is a start, not the destination. Lasting change needs reasoning-based training, follow-up on court directions, attention to disability, caste and tribal contexts, and a more representative Bench, so that substantive equality shows in outcomes, not only in words.
Interview Angle
"A senior colleague says that replacing 'visitation' with 'parenting time' is mere political correctness that changes nothing for the child. How would you respond?"
Takeaway Box
- Lift line: “Calling it parenting time recognizes a simple truth that no parent is a visitor in the life of a child.” (Karnataka High Court, 29 September 2026)
- Core idea: sensitive judicial language is necessary but not sufficient; judges must examine the assumptions behind words, and the Bench must become more representative.
- Prelims hooks: Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes (16 August 2023); Judgments and Gender report (August 2026, committee chaired by former Justice Aniruddha Bose, 125 trial court judgments); Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 17; HMGA, 1956, Sections 6 and 13; Bangkok General Guidance (ICJ, 2022).
- Ethics and Interview angle: empathy and compassion in public institutions; how a judge or officer’s unexamined assumptions affect the people before them.
- Probable question: “Gender-sensitive language in judgments is necessary but not sufficient for gender justice. Discuss.” (GS2, 250 words)
Sources:
- Priyamvadha Shivaji, “Why sensitive legal language matters”, The Hindu, 22 October 2026
- High Court of Karnataka, WP 26958/2026, order of 29 September 2026 and case status; Bar and Bench, 1 October 2026
- Supreme Court of India, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1 of 2025, judgment of 10 February 2026 (2026 INSC 165)
- Supreme Court of India, “Judgments and Gender” (August 2026); LiveLaw, 16 August 2023 and 18 August 2026; SC Observer, 7 August 2026
- International Commission of Jurists, Bangkok General Guidance (May 2022)
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Cite this page: Why Sensitive Legal Language Matters: Parenting Time, Gender — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
