"is violative of" vs. "violate"


All forms of discrimination on grounds of gender is violative of fundamental freedoms and human rights.

Would a native of English language use is violative of, rather than "violate(s)", in the sentence above? If so, how are these two ways different?


Posted 2013-02-18T20:29:50.953


Question was closed 2013-02-19T07:12:07.807

5It's worth noting that this cited instance (from the Times of India) probably wasn't even written by a native Anglophone, who would be unlikely to mix the singular verb form ("is") with a plural subject ("forms of discrimination"). Particularly since native speakers would realise that "violative" is a relatively rare "legalese" term (not even recognised by my spellchecker), so you'd only expect it in very carefully worded contexts. Therefore I think this is Too Localised. – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica – 2013-02-18T21:04:41.297



No normal native speaker would say is violative of. They'd say "is in violation of".

"Is violative of" seems to be used predominantly by lawyers when writing and discussing laws.

However, since the link you cite is in fact discussing law, then is violative of is not unexpected.


Posted 2013-02-18T20:29:50.953

Reputation: 8 476

Why has the writer used "On grounds of" instead of "about"? Is it to sound more formal or there is no difference between these two? – Persian Cat – 2013-02-18T21:08:36.913

2@user37324 -- Legalese always seems to involve the most convoluted possible manner of expressing something. It would take another lawyer to explain the fine distinctions, but in some situations, it's not possible to use "plain English" in such a way that a lawyer can't find a legal "hole" in the explanation to relieve a client of responsibility. – barbara beeton – 2013-02-18T21:37:18.710