Madras High Court flags mental toll on judges, lawyers, cops who review graphic evidence in sexual crimes

The Madras High Court recently commented on the severe mental and neurological toll it takes for judges, lawyers and the police to repeatedly review graphic digital evidence in sexual offense cases [Suji v. State].

A Bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan was dealing with an appeal filed by a man convicted in a rape case. The matter involved allegations of rape and threats that sensitive photos and videos of the rape survivor would be leaked.

The High Court on July 14 upheld the man's conviction and a trial court's decision to sentence him to life imprisonment.

The lead opinion authored by Justice Ramakrishnan also urged young women to refrain from sharing intimate photos and videos with anyone, noting that the rise of digital communication has also created several opportunities for exploitation through deception and blackmail.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Venkatesh made pertinent observations on the psychological impact suffered by judges, lawyers and investigators when they have to examine digital evidence of sexual crimes.

The judge recalled that earlier, evidence used to be through oral testimony of witnesses and clinical reports. This shielded judges and lawyers from actually seeing the crime unfold. There was a buffer between them and the raw trauma of the crime, he observed.

"None of the decision makers actually saw the crime unfold (earlier)... We processed suffering through words, not through direct sight."

However, the situation has now changed with the advent of the digital age, Justice Venkatesh added.

"We are no longer asked merely to evaluate descriptions, we are now compelled to watch the violence itself. Courts dealing with sexual offences are increasingly flooded with explicit videos and photographs that record the worst of human behaviour ... The system now requires its officers to do something fundamentally unnatural: to become, repeatedly and retrospectively, spectators to the violation of human dignity," he said.

He went on to advocate for measures to tackle the mental toll this process takes on those involved in the justice delivery system, namely judges, lawyers and the police.

"We are entering a new era where these types of digital crimes are rapidly increasing. The law has built strict checks and balances under the Evidence Act to make sure digital files are not manipulated. But the law has completely ignored how these same digital files manipulate and harm the human minds required to judge them," he observed.

The judge underscored that the machinery of justice cannot treat its personnel like "unfeeling computers."

Repeatedly watching graphic digital evidence causes real, measurable psychological harm or vicarious trauma, he emphasised.

"No amount of police or legal training will inoculate a human being from absorbing such toxic material without incurring a substantial mental cost," he added.

Justice Venkatesh warned that if the judiciary continues to ignore the vicarious trauma experienced by those handling such sensitive material, it will ultimately end up with burnt-out, traumatised, and emotionally numbed investigators, lawyers, and judges.

He stressed that protecting the mental health of legal professionals is not a luxury but an essential requirement for a system that relies on human judgment.

"The law must continue to refine the technical rules for digital evidence. It must also, with equal seriousness, safeguard the minds entrusted to apply it," the judge added.

The Bench, therefore, recommended a comprehensive set of measures to tackle the issue, including mandatory psychological screening alongside regular counseling sessions for all individuals tasked with handling graphic evidence.

[Read Judgment]