The Supreme Court on Monday underscored the need for greater sensitivity and a survivor-centric approach in judgments involving sexual offences, releasing a report prepared by an expert committee that examined the language and reasoning used by courts in such cases.
The report, titled Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments, recommends that judges avoid expressions such as "prosecutrix", "helpless woman", "lost her chastity" and "outraged her modesty". Instead, it advocates the use of neutral and rights-based terms including "victim", "survivor", "complainant", "bodily autonomy" and "sexual assault".
The committee, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, analysed 125 trial court judgments from across India with assistance from State judicial academies. While acknowledging positive practices in several courts, it found inconsistencies in how victims, witnesses and other vulnerable persons were treated.
'Avoid stereotypes and victim-blaming'
The committee stressed that judicial language must uphold fairness, dignity and impartiality. It cautioned judges against relying on gender stereotypes or asking questions that blame victims for the crime.
It also recommended that survivors should not be compelled to interact with the accused during court proceedings. The report noted that judicial attitudes in cases involving unconscious victims have at times reinforced "rape myths" by questioning the survivor's credibility instead of scrutinising the accused's conduct.
"Such language can re-traumatise survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice," the report observed, calling for stronger courtroom protocols, accessible support systems, public awareness campaigns and a complete ban on moralistic or gendered commentary in judicial orders.
Replacing outdated terminology
The committee proposed replacing several expressions commonly found in court judgments with language that reflects constitutional values and legal precision.
For example, it suggested using "violated the bodily autonomy of the complainant or victim" instead of phrases such as "the body of women as playground". Likewise, it recommended describing the impact of an offence as "the survivor experienced harm or trauma" rather than using emotionally loaded expressions such as "soul destroyed" or "victimisation".
The report also advised courts to avoid phrases including "poor helpless minor girl", "(the accused) fuelled by lust", "satisfy his illicit lust", "spoiled her childhood" and "ruined her life".
According to the committee, words such as "honour", "shame", "chastity", "bashfulness" and "sanctity" are rooted in patriarchal notions that link a woman's value to sexual purity or family reputation. Judicial reasoning, it said, should instead centre on consent, dignity, bodily autonomy and constitutional rights.
It further observed that describing sexual offences as acts driven by "lust" tends to normalise male sexual aggression and diminishes the gravity of the crime. Courts should instead employ legally accurate expressions such as "sexual assault", "sexual violence" or simply "offence".
Guidelines for courtroom conduct
The committee cautioned judges against drawing adverse conclusions from delayed complaints, absence of physical injuries or a survivor's failure to physically resist.
"Absence of injuries, delayed reporting, or lack of resistance does not imply consent. Victims may respond differently to trauma. Courts should avoid adverse inferences based on stereotypical expectations of victim behaviour," the report stated.
It also urged trial courts to prevent humiliating or intrusive cross-examinations, particularly questions relating to a survivor's sexual history, clothing or conduct before the alleged offence.
The report recommended that judges ensure basic courtesies, such as providing survivors with a chair and drinking water, clearing unnecessary persons from the courtroom during testimony and remaining attentive to both verbal and non-verbal signs of distress.
"It is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilised society to judge a woman solely based on her clothing or to draw conclusions about her virtue or modesty," the report said.
The committee further recommended pre-trial counselling, in-camera proceedings, witness protection measures and legal aid for survivors. It emphasised that judges should proactively ensure the safety of victims and vulnerable witnesses instead of waiting for them to seek protection.
Background to the Committee
The expert committee was constituted following the Supreme Court's February 10, 2026 judgment directing the formulation of guidelines to promote sensitivity and compassion among judges dealing with sexual offences and cases involving vulnerable persons.
The direction came after the apex court took suo motu cognisance of a controversial Allahabad High Court order which had observed that grabbing the breast of a minor and opening the drawstrings of her pyjamas would not amount to an attempt to commit rape.