A comprehensive new study has found that while India’s Supreme Court has frequently upheld the rights of Dalits, its language across several landmark judgments has often reflected deep-seated caste hierarchies. The findings have triggered a rare moment of introspection for one of the world’s most influential constitutional courts.
Landmark rulings, troubling language
The study, funded by the University of Melbourne and conducted in collaboration with the Supreme Court, examined constitution bench judgments from 1950 to 2025. These judgments hold particular weight because they set binding precedents, inform legal education and shape wider public discourse.
Researchers found that although the court consistently protected Dalit rights in key cases, its descriptions of Dalit communities were at times “demeaning or insensitive”. Some rulings compared oppressed castes to “ordinary horses” contrasted against “first-class race horses”, while others described reservation policies as “crutches”.
A number of judgments also framed caste oppression as analogous to disability, implying inherent limitations in oppressed groups rather than structural injustices embedded in society.
Misplaced assumptions and harmful stereotypes
The report highlights recurring assumptions in judicial writing, including the belief that education alone can eradicate caste discrimination—despite extensive evidence showing that caste barriers impede access to schooling, jobs, credit and land.
Some rulings described caste as a benign “division of labour”, a characterisation researchers say dangerously legitimises the social and economic confinement historically imposed on Dalits.
A 2020 judgment cited in the report described certain Scheduled Tribe communities as having a “primitive way of life” that makes them unfit for mainstream society, reinforcing long-debunked stereotypes.
“These comparisons—whether to animals or to disability—were not just poorly chosen metaphors; they reinforced stigma,” said Professor Farrah Ahmed of Melbourne Law School, a co-author of the study. “The real problem lies in societal structures, not in any inherent deficiency among oppressed communities.”
A paradox of progressive outcomes and regressive language
Researchers emphasise that the court’s outcomes have often been progressive, strengthening protections for historically marginalised communities. However, they argue that judicial language has not always evolved alongside constitutional values.
“I would find it surprising if the judicial language we discuss had no effect on judges’ decisions,” Prof Ahmed noted, suggesting that linguistic biases may subtly shape legal reasoning.
Supreme Court’s own efforts to address bias
The court has, in recent years, taken steps to confront discriminatory practices. In 2023, it issued directions to revise prison manuals after an investigation revealed caste-based segregation and unequal labour distribution in jails.
The judiciary has also sought to improve sensitivity in legal writing. In August 2023, the Supreme Court released a Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, advising judges and lawyers to avoid discriminatory language in legal documents and courtroom arguments.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur acknowledged that some outdated language may have appeared unintentionally, noting that courts must keep pace with evolving societal expectations.
Lack of representation at the top
The report underscores that linguistic insensitivity may stem partly from the court’s limited diversity. Researchers estimate that only eight Dalit judges have ever served on the Supreme Court.
For the last six months, Justice BR Gavai served as India’s second Dalit Chief Justice until his retirement last week. Justice KG Balakrishnan, the first Dalit Chief Justice (2007–2010), is frequently cited in the report for writing powerfully about caste as an “unbreakable bondage” that consigns people to “impure” occupations and even dictates segregation in burial spaces.
These perspectives, researchers argue, stand in stark contrast to judgments that downplay the harsh realities of caste-based exclusion. The study suggests the judiciary “urgently needs more diverse insights and experiences”, particularly of those who have lived through caste discrimination.
A moment of institutional introspection
For an institution often perceived as above politics, the report represents a rare internal audit of language, perceptions and cultural blind spots. It emphasises that the fight for equality is not only waged in constitutional principles but also in metaphors, analogies and everyday judicial phrasing.
Legal scholars say the findings may encourage broader efforts within India’s judiciary to examine how language shapes justice—and to ensure that future generations of legal writing align more closely with the ideals of dignity and equality enshrined in the Constitution.