NEW DELHI — India's Supreme Court prides itself on defending the rights of Dalits — historically the country's most oppressed citizens.

But a new study argues that the court's own language has frequently reflected the caste hierarchies it aims to erase. About 160 million Indians are Dalits, once called "untouchables", yet many remain trapped in menial jobs and shut out of social and economic opportunity.

For much of independent India's history, the country's top judges have struggled to speak about Dalits in ways that recognise dignity rather than reinforce stigma, the study found. That tension — between progressive legal outcomes and regressive language — is the central paradox documented in a sweeping review of 75 years of judgments of the top court.

The University of Melbourne-funded research, conducted in partnership with the Supreme Court, offers a rare internal reckoning for one of the world's most powerful judiciaries.

The study examines "constitution bench" rulings — decided by five or more judges — from 1950 to 2025. These rulings are especially important because they set legal precedents, are taught in law schools, invoked in courtrooms and cited by later benches.

It found that while these landmark decisions often upheld Dalit rights, their language could be "demeaning or insensitive", notes Professor Farrah Ahmed of Melbourne Law School, a co-author of the study.

Some judgments liken caste oppression to disability, implying that the oppressed or disabled are inherently inferior.

Others assume — contrary to evidence — that education alone can erase caste, shifting the burden from society to individual Dalits who must study their way to equality. Still others overlook the caste barriers that block access to jobs, credit and markets, deepening poverty.

Some judges likened Dalits to "ordinary horses'' in contrast to upper classes who were like "first class race horses". Others described affirmative-action measures as "crutches" that Dalits should not depend on for too long.

Some judges even described the origins of caste as "benign" — merely a system of division of labour. This, researchers say, "supported a bitterly unfair status quo that confines oppressed castes to reviled and poorly paid work".

A 2020 judgement cited by the study talked about "primitive way of life [of Scheduled Tribes or other marginalised tribespeople] makes them unfit to put up with the mainstream and to be governed by the ordinary laws" — and describes them as needing a "helping hand to uplift them and to make them contribute to the national development and not to remain part of the primitive culture".

Such language, the study suggests, went beyond poor phrasing to reinforce harmful stereotypes.

"These comparisons — whether to animals or to people with disabilities — were offensive to both groups," says Prof Ahmed. "The real problem is not any supposed inherent limitation, but the society around them, which fails to support them to thrive."

The study found that such "stigmatising views" appeared in rulings that upheld Dalit rights.

"I think the judges were genuinely unaware of the implications of the language they were using, and what it revealed about their deeply held attitudes. I don't think, in any of these cases, that there was an intention to insult or demean Dalit people," says Prof Ahmed.

Does this linguistic bias influence the court's reasoning or outcomes, or was it a blind spot that coexists with progressive decisions?

"I would find it surprising if the judicial language we discuss, including language that is demeaning or that downplays the perniciousness of the caste system, had no effect on judges' decisions," Prof Ahmed told the BBC.

Beyond individual rulings, Supreme Court judges influence Indian society and politics more broadly; their language matters because it is widely reported, debated and shapes public discourse.

Yet, the court has actively addressed caste bias. In October last year, responding to an investigative report, it directed the federal government and states to revise prison manuals to address caste-based discrimination. This bias had been evident in the division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and rules that unfairly targeted historically marginalised communities.

Also, many judges stress that any outdated or problematic language is not intentional.

"Courts may not always be fully up to speed with how language evolves — that's possible. But there's no motive at play here," Madan Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge, told the BBC.

Recognising this, in August 2023, the Supreme Court released a 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes', featuring a glossary of "gender-unjust" words that judges and lawyers are advised to avoid in legal writing. This aims to eliminate demeaning, discriminatory or stereotyped language, particularly against women, children, people with disabilities and in cases involving sexual crimes.

Could similar efforts realistically influence how Supreme Court judges write about caste?

"This report is just a first step in shifting how judges write about caste. We are starting from a place where there was formerly little appreciation for the problem," says Prof Ahmed.

More internal reviews like this report are essential, she adds. Most importantly, "lawyers, legal academia and the judiciary need the insights that can only come from full inclusion of members of oppressed castes", says Prof Ahmed.

India's Supreme Court has had strikingly little Dalit representation. "On our estimate, there have only ever been eight Dalit judges on the Supreme Court," the researchers note.

For the past six months, Chief Justice BR Gavai — the second Dalit to lead the court — headed it until his retirement last week.

Justice KG Balakrishnan — the court's first Dalit chief justice — served on the bench for two of the cases examined in the study, and his views are cited repeatedly in the report.

Justice Balakrishnan's writing, they point out, describes caste as an "unbreakable bondage" that consigns people to "impure" occupations, a condition from which "even death does not provide escape", given continued segregation in graveyards and crematoriums.

This, the researchers argue, contrasts sharply with rulings that downplay caste injustices — evidence, they say, that India's top court "desperately needs more diverse insights and perspectives, especially from oppressed castes".

For a court treated as an institution above politics, the report marks an unusual moment of introspection. It suggests that the struggle for caste equality is not only waged in judgments and statutes, but in metaphors, analogies and everyday linguistic choices. — BBC