Justice Gavai Urges High Courts to Eliminate Caste-Coded Job Titles in Judiciary

In a poignant call to action before his retirement, Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, has urged all Chief Justices of High Courts to promptly amend service rules that perpetuate caste-coded, colonial-era, and hierarchically loaded job titles. This directive stems from a comprehensive report by the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP) at the Supreme Court of India, titled Reforming Administrative Nomenclature in the Indian Judiciary: Embedding Dignity and Equity in Service Rules . The report exposes how outdated terminology in judicial service rules undermines the constitutional ethos of equality, dignity, and fraternity, calling for immediate reforms to align the judiciary's administrative language with modern democratic values.

This development marks a significant moment in the ongoing effort to decolonize and democratize India's judicial institutions. As the custodian of fundamental rights, the judiciary must lead by example in eradicating remnants of feudal and colonial hierarchies that continue to stigmatize support staff and reinforce systemic inequalities. Justice Gavai's letter emphasizes that such language is "wholly incompatible with the values of the Constitution," highlighting the urgent need for High Courts to revise their rules without delay.

The Genesis of the Reform Call: Justice Gavai's Pre-Retirement Directive

Justice B.R. Gavai's communication to High Court Chief Justices arrives at a critical juncture, just before his demitting office. In his letter, he draws attention to the CRP report, which meticulously maps service rules across the Supreme Court and 25 High Courts. These rules, he notes, retain expressions rooted in "feudal and colonial regimes," clashing with the Constitution's mandate to uphold equality under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), 17 (abolition of untouchability), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty, encompassing dignity).

Justice Gavai's urging is not merely administrative but deeply moral. He stresses that the judiciary, as an institution "constitutionally mandated to uphold equality, dignity, and fraternity," cannot tolerate terminology that inflicts "dignitary harm" on its employees. This call resonates with broader judicial trends toward inclusivity, echoing landmark rulings like the Supreme Court's emphasis on substantive equality in cases such as Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which addressed reservations while underscoring the need to combat caste-based discrimination in all spheres, including employment.

The timing of this initiative is particularly apt, as India continues to grapple with the legacies of caste and colonialism in public institutions. By targeting internal nomenclature, the judiciary addresses a subtle yet pervasive form of structural inequality that affects the morale and perception of thousands of support staff members who form the backbone of court operations.

Unpacking the CRP Report: A Nationwide Audit of Archaic Nomenclature

The CRP report, prepared under the leadership of Dr. Anurag Bhaskar—an academician on deputation to the Supreme Court—represents a groundbreaking effort in institutional self-reflection. As the research arm of the Supreme Court, the CRP's mandate includes strengthening judicial administration through evidence-based policy frameworks. This particular study involved an exhaustive review of service rules, uncovering how administrative posts are still described using terms that carry "historical baggage" and reinforce social exclusion.

Key findings reveal a lexicon of subordination embedded in official documents. For instance, terms like "Halalkhor," "Jamadar," "Sewak," "Bhisti," "Mali," and "Scavenger" persist in various rules. These designations are inextricably linked to caste-based occupations historically deemed "polluting" or menial, perpetuating stigma under the guise of tradition. In some jurisdictions, caste names themselves are listed as official titles, a direct affront to the constitutional abolition of untouchability.

The report also flags other obsolete labels such as "Basta Bardar/Bundel Lifter," "Farash," "Chobdar," "Cycle Sawar," and "Masalchi," which originate from feudal or colonial hierarchies. These terms bear no functional relevance in a contemporary democracy and evoke servitude rather than professional identity. Even broader categorizations like "Last Grade" or "Inferior Staff" maintain a rigid status hierarchy, prioritizing outdated notions over merit and function.

One particularly striking example cited is the categorization of maintenance and support roles under derogatory headings, which not only demean individuals but also undermine the judiciary's legitimacy as a rights-enforcing body. The report argues that such nomenclature constitutes a "discursive mechanism" that reproduces institutional inequality, drawing on Ambedkarite thought and critical theory to illustrate its constitutional infirmity.

As Dr. Bhaskar notes in the report's preface, this "grammar of inequality" violates core constitutional principles by normalizing exclusion and eroding dignity—elements central to Article 21's expansive interpretation in judgments like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The CRP's analysis posits that language in service rules is far from neutral; it shapes institutional culture and public perception, potentially deterring diverse talent and perpetuating cycles of disadvantage.

Why Language Matters: Constitutional and Social Implications

At its core, the report contends that administrative nomenclature is a powerful tool in either reinforcing or dismantling hierarchies. By invoking constitutional jurisprudence, it demonstrates how archaic terms breach the Preamble's commitment to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. For legal professionals, this raises profound questions about the judiciary's internal consistency: How can courts champion equality in external disputes while harboring inequality within?

The implications extend beyond symbolism. Retaining caste-coded titles can lead to psychological harm, lower job satisfaction, and even legal challenges under equality provisions. The report links this to broader societal impacts, noting that judicial language influences public trust in the institution. In a diverse nation like India, where caste dynamics remain fraught, such reforms are essential for fostering an inclusive workplace that mirrors the Constitution's vision.

From a legal standpoint, this initiative aligns with evolving doctrines on dignity as a fundamental right. Cases like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) have expanded Article 21 to include protections against stigmatizing language and practices. The CRP's work thus positions the judiciary as a pioneer in "resignification"—reframing institutional vocabulary to affirm professional worth and constitutional values.

Critics might argue that renaming alone is insufficient without structural changes like better pay and training for support staff. However, the report views nomenclature reform as a foundational step, signaling institutional commitment to equity. For High Courts, ignoring this call could invite scrutiny, potentially through writ petitions challenging discriminatory rules.

A Roadmap for Dignified Reforms: Recommendations and Alternatives

The CRP report does not stop at critique; it offers a practical framework for change. Anchored in the theory of resignification, it proposes replacing derogatory titles with neutral, function-based alternatives that emphasize professionalism and respect. Suggested mappings include:

• "Peon" → "Office Assistant"
• "Court Servant" → "Judicial Support Staff"
• "Halalkhor/Scavenger" → "Sanitation Attendant"
• "Jamadar" → "Supervisor (Cleaning/Services)"
• "Mali" → "Horticulture Assistant"
• "Chowkidar" → "Security Attendant"

These changes aim to recognize the essential contributions of all roles, shifting focus from hierarchy to equity. The report urges a phased implementation: first, an audit of existing rules; second, stakeholder consultations; and third, amendments aligned with constitutional morality.

Justice Gavai echoes this urgency, imploring High Courts to amend rules "at the earliest" to reflect the judiciary's ethical commitments. This framework not only modernizes administration but also enhances the institution's moral authority, ensuring that every employee—from judges to attendants—operates in an environment of mutual respect.

Broader Context: CRP's Role and the Path Forward

The Centre for Research and Planning (CRP) exemplifies the Supreme Court's proactive approach to self-improvement. Established as an institutional research unit, it conducts studies to deepen alignment with constitutional values. Under Dr. Anurag Bhaskar's leadership, the CRP has produced reports on diverse topics, from case management to access to justice, making this nomenclature study a valuable addition to its portfolio.

Looking ahead, the success of these reforms will depend on collective action. High Courts, as autonomous entities under Article 235, hold the power to enact changes swiftly. Legal scholars anticipate that this could inspire similar overhauls in other public sectors, such as executive and legislative branches, accelerating India's decolonization journey.

For the legal community, this development underscores the judiciary's evolving role as a social engineer. By purging its lexicon of inequality, the courts reaffirm their pledge to a transformative Constitution—one that not only interprets law but lives it. As India marks milestones in its constitutional history, initiatives like this remind us that true progress lies in the details: the words we choose, the dignity we uphold, and the equality we embody.

In conclusion, Justice Gavai's directive and the CRP report represent a clarion call for introspection and action. They challenge the legal fraternity to confront uncomfortable legacies and build a judiciary that truly serves as the "temple of justice." With prompt amendments, High Courts can ensure their service rules honor the promise of a dignified, equitable future for all who serve within them.

(Word count: 1,248)