Avoid terms like ‘helpless woman’ in rape judgments; no moral policing: Supreme Court panel to judges

The Supreme Court on Monday released a report prepared by an expert committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, which made several recommendations to ensure a sensitive approach by judges who decide on cases involving sexual offences..Judges must avoid expressions such as “prosecutrix”, “helpless woman”, “lost her chastity” and “outraged her modesty” in judgments delivered in such cases, the report says. The report, titled Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments, said that courts should instead use neutral and survivor-centric terms such as “victim”, “survivor”, “complainant”, “bodily autonomy” and “sexual assault.".The committee prepared the recommendations after analysing 125 trial court judgments from across the country with the assistance of State judicial academies. It found a mixed picture concerning the sensitivity and approach of judges while dealing with victims, witnesses and vulnerable groups..The committee said sensitive judicial language was not merely a matter of politeness but was essential to ensuring fairness, dignity and impartiality in adjudication. It underscored that judges must avoid asking stereotypical or blaming questions and should not force victims to interact with accused persons. It further flagged concerns that judicial attitudes in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women have often reproduced “rape myths” and questioned victims’ credibility rather than focusing on the accused’s conduct.“Such language can re-traumatize survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice ... Court should have clear comprehensive polices and accessible support system. Also, promote awareness and education campaigns for public for reducing stigma and misconceptions about the victim. A strict prohibition on gendered and moral commentary," the report added..The report has offered suggestions on how judicial language should be reframed, with a detailed tabled on how to replace problematic phrases often seen in judgments dealing with sexual crimes. For instance, it suggested that the expression “the body of women as playground” could be replaced with “violated bodily autonomy of complainant or victim." It recommended using “the survivor experienced harm or trauma” instead of phrases such as “victimisation, soul destroyed”.Similarly, courts should avoid expressions such as “poor helpless minor girl”, “(an accused) fuelled by lust”, “satisfy his illicit lust”, “spoiled her childhood”, “ruined life” and “haunt throughout her life”, the committee said.It added that words such as “honour”, “shame”, “chastity”, “bashfulness” and “sanctity” were rooted in patriarchal ideas that linked a woman’s worth to her sexual purity or the reputation of her family. Judicial reasoning should instead focus on consent, dignity, bodily autonomy and constitutional rights..The committee also advised courts to use “sexual assault” or “rape” instead of “physical relationship” where the act was non-consensual or the victim was a minor.According to the panel, using words like “lust” in connection with sexual assault implicitly treats the uncontrollable sexual desire of men as a natural phenomenon and weakens the seriousness of the offence. Courts should instead use legally precise expressions such as “sexual assault”, “sexual violence” or “offence”, it said..The report also cautioned judges against drawing adverse conclusions due to the delayed reporting of sexual offences or because of an absence of injuries or the lack of physical resistance by a survivor.“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 behavior,” it stated..Courts should avoid adverse inferences based on stereotypical expectations of victim behavior.Judgments and Gender Report.The panel further asked trial judges to control insulting or intrusive cross-examination, particularly questions concerning a survivor’s sexual history. "Women speak up in court only in the hope that the judge would do something to save their honor and dignity. The judge has the power to control his court; directing the staff to offer basic courtesies by offering a chair and water. A judge must be a little more alert and vigilant while the victim is deposing. Make sure that unnecessary people should be moved out just to make her more comfortable. Not just her words but her body language should be observed by a judge," the report states. .Women speak up in court only in the hope that the judge would do something to save their honor and dignity.Judgments and Gender Report.It stressed that courts should not remain silent spectators when victims are subjected to embarrassing, intimidating or irrelevant questioning. It noted that women are often subjected to queries about what they were wearing or their behaviour before the crime. "These statements, instead of building the survivor’s confidence, further traumatize and deter them from seeking justice... 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, as such judgments are rooted in rigid notions of patriarchy," the report warned. .Unpardonable in any civilized society to judge a woman solely based on her clothing or to draw conclusions about her virtue or modesty.Judgments and Gender Report.The committee recommended pre-trial counselling, in-camera proceedings, witness-protection measures and legal assistance for survivors. Presiding officers should not wait for victims or vulnerable witnesses to apply for protection since ensuring their safety was a legal obligation, it added.The committee was constituted pursuant to a February 10, 2026, Supreme Court judgment calling for guidelines to inculcate sensitivity and compassion among judges who deal with sexual offences and other cases involving vulnerable persons..Besides Justice Bose, the committee comprised former Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sonia G Gokani, former Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police Anuradha Shankar, Supreme Court lawyer Dr Surat Singh and North-Eastern Hill University Professor Lucy TV Zehol..The panel was assisted by National Judicial Academy faculty member Dr Sonam Jain. Madhya Pradesh cadre District Judge Shrish Kailash Shukul, who is serving as Officer on Special Duty at the Academy, provided inputs and administrative support..[Read Report]