E-Paper
'Impermissible' to judge women by clothes: SC panel urges overhaul of language adopted in sexual offence cases
Apart from reforming judicial language, the committee recommended a series of courtroom practices aimed at making the justice system more sensitive.
It is “unpardonable and impermissible in any civilised society” to judge a woman by the clothes she wears or draw conclusions about her virtue, modesty or character, an expert committee constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions has said, recommending a sweeping overhaul of the language and approach adopted by judges in sexual offence cases to eliminate stereotypes and prevent the secondary victimisation of survivors.
The committee, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, has called for the creation of a new “language ecosystem” in the judiciary that replaces patriarchal, moralistic and stigmatising expressions with neutral, survivor-centric terminology.
Also Read | SC may issue sensitivity norms for courts in sexual assault cases
Report after analysing 125 trial court judgments
Its report, “Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments,” was prepared after analysing 125 trial court judgments from across the country with assistance from State Judicial Academies.
The report is the outcome of the February 10 directions by a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant in a suo motu case to revisit judicial practices in sexual offence cases after controversial observations made by the Allahabad High Court. The committee comprised former Gujarat High Court chief justice Sonia Gokani, former Madhya Pradesh director general of police Anuradha Shankar, Supreme Court advocate Surat Singh and anthropologist Lucy TV Zehol.
The panel said that judicial language is not merely a matter of style but “shapes justice” by influencing how survivors experience the legal process and how society understands sexual violence.
Also Read | Legally Speaking | A look at the Supreme Court's judgment on the right to privacy of adolescents
‘Prosecutrix’, ‘helpless woman’ and other expressions
It urged courts to stop using expressions such as “prosecutrix”, “helpless woman”, “poor helpless minor girl”, “lost her chastity”, “victim of another person’s lust”, “outraged her modesty”, “destroyed her life”, “spoiled her childhood”, “woman in a non-permissive society”, and references to a woman’s “honour”, “shame”, “sanctity” or “bashfulness”.
Instead, it recommended the use of terms such as “victim”, “survivor”, “complainant”, “sexual assault”, “sexual violence”, “violation of bodily autonomy” and “bodily autonomy”, observing that these expressions recognise dignity and constitutional rights instead of reinforcing patriarchal notions.
The committee also advised judges against using words such as “whore”, “fallen woman”, “mistress”, “concubine”, “kept”, “call girl” or “prostitute”, recommending “partner” and “sex worker” wherever appropriate, except where statutory terminology requires otherwise.
Making a strong case against victim blaming, the report underlined that survivors routinely face intrusive questions throughout the criminal justice process about why they were outside at a particular time, why they wore certain clothes, why they delayed reporting the offence or why they were not accompanied by male relatives.
“It is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilized society to judge a woman solely based on her clothing or to draw conclusions about her virtue or modesty,” said the committee, stressing that such assumptions have no place in judicial decision-making. Judicial findings, it said, must be founded on evidence and not on stereotypes or preconceived notions about how a victim of sexual violence is expected to behave.
The report lays down nine broad principles to guide judicial writing in sexual offence cases. These include ensuring that findings are evidence-based; exercising caution while using statutory expressions such as “outraging modesty”; adopting trauma-informed language; using gender-neutral and survivor-centric terminology; referring to victims under the POCSO Act as “children” or “minors”; replacing “prosecutrix” with “victim” or “survivor”; avoiding sensational or moralistic descriptions; focussing on autonomy, consent and child rights; and recognising the enduring psychological and physical trauma suffered by survivors. It reiterates that absence of injuries, delayed reporting or lack of physical resistance cannot be equated with consent.
Apart from reforming judicial language, the committee recommended a series of courtroom practices aimed at making the justice system more sensitive to survivors. It said judges should ensure that victims receive legal aid from the FIR stage, facilitate access to victim compensation schemes, conduct in-camera proceedings wherever required by law, proactively prevent humiliating or irrelevant cross-examination, particularly on a survivor’s sexual history, and ensure strict confidentiality of victims’ identities.
The report also encouraged greater use of video links and screens for vulnerable witnesses, observance of witness protection measures even without formal applications, and a trauma-informed approach to courtroom management. Witnesses, it said, should be treated as “guests” of the court rather than being made to spend long hours waiting to testify, a practice that weakens both the justice delivery system and public confidence in courts.
Calling sensitivity “an ongoing process”, the committee underlined that judicial training should continuously address unconscious bias and gender stereotypes. Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations in SP Gupta Vs Union of India (1981), it said the true independence of a judge lies in overcoming personal prejudices through education, training and humility.
