E-Paper
Don’t blame survivors of sexual crimes, UP Police tells investigators
DGP Rajeev Krishna’s 20-point directive follows Supreme Court’s push for gender-sensitive legal language; investigators told not to discredit survivors over silence, lack of injuries or delay in filing FIR
Prefer HTon Google
A woman’s clothing, past relationships, marital status or social media activity cannot be used to blame her for a sexual offence allegedly committed against her, the Uttar Pradesh Police has directed investigators, citing the need to ensure that survivors are not subjected to further trauma through insensitive and prejudicial language in the criminal justice system.
A 20-point directive issued by director general of police (DGP) Rajeev Krishna on September 30 bars investigating officers from treating a woman’s previous sexual history as evidence of consent. Knowing the accused, accompanying the person somewhere, remaining silent or not physically resisting an alleged assault cannot, by themselves, be interpreted as consent, according to the directive. A delay in lodging an FIR or the absence of injuries must not automatically be used to discredit a survivor’s account, the directive added.
The directive follows the Supreme Court’s July 14, 2026 directions in a suo motu writ petition concerning the use of sensitive and respectful legal language in cases involving sexual and other sensitive offences. The court’s publication, Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, and its related work on gender-sensitive judgments, underscores that language is not merely a matter of courtesy but is essential to ensuring fairness, dignity and justice.
The police circular specifically notes that stereotypical, derogatory or victim-blaming language can retraumatise survivors and affect their trust in, and participation in, the criminal justice system. Although the principles were framed primarily in the context of judicial writing, the Supreme Court’s directions have been extended to police documentation, including FIRs, case diaries, investigation forms, police reports and chargesheets.
The guidelines prohibit investigators from citing a woman’s clothing, movements, marital status, mobile phone use or social media activity to suggest that she was responsible for an alleged offence. Her relationship with the accused or decision to accompany the person cannot be treated as evidence that she consented to a sexual act.
Officers have also been directed not to undermine a survivor’s credibility merely because she did not raise an alarm, appeared calm after the incident or had minor inconsistencies in her statement. The absence of physical injuries or resistance cannot, by itself, establish consent, the directive said.
Similarly, a delay in lodging an FIR must not automatically be treated as proof of a false complaint. Where reasons for the delay are available, investigators must record them factually in accordance with the survivor’s or informant’s account rather than draw unsupported adverse conclusions.
‘No moral judgments in police records’
The DGP has directed officers to avoid derogatory or patronising descriptions and use terms such as “survivor”, “victim”, “complainant” or “informant”, as appropriate. References to a woman’s “honour”, “purity” or “chastity” have been discouraged, as have unsupported labels such as “unstable”, “hysterical” or “dramatic”.
Investigators must accurately record statements without altering their meaning, downplaying allegations or using language that could encourage a settlement. Offensive expressions used by a complainant, witness or accused may be reproduced only when necessary to establish an offence, threat or discriminatory abuse, with the words attributed to the person who used them, the circular said.
The circular also rules out presenting marriage with the accused, compromise or protection of family reputation as a solution to sexual or domestic violence cases.
Identity protection and safeguards for children
The directive requires police to protect survivors’ identities in sexual offence and child sexual abuse cases. Unnecessary identifying details must not appear in FIR copies, press notes, chargesheets or other public documents, in accordance with applicable law, the circular said.
In cases involving children below 18, officers must avoid descriptions suggesting that a child was willing, provocative, of questionable character or coached into making allegations. The circular reiterates that a child’s consent is not legally recognised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Supervisory officers responsible for compliance
Investigating officers, circle officers and supervisory officers have been tasked with ensuring compliance in case diaries, chargesheets and final reports.
The circular provides examples of inappropriate expressions and recommended alternatives. It also directs officers to describe a person as an “accused” rather than declare them guilty before a court reaches a finding. Chargesheets must reflect what the evidence prima facie establishes without emotionally charged or conclusive language, the circular says.
