Courts' insensitivity re-traumatises sex assault survivors: SC pushes for changes
The Supreme Court has directed High Courts to train judges on new guidelines that call for survivor-centric handling of sexual assault cases, urging courts to avoid stereotypes, victim-blaming language and insensitive practices.
Nearly 40 per cent of survivors in sexual assault cases feel that courts and lawyers are not always sensitive or empathetic towards their trauma, while 17 per cent reported feeling "scared" while appearing in court and giving testimony, according to a report submitted before the Supreme Court by a committee on gender and justice.
The survey, conducted among sexual assault survivors at the district court level, found that 80.7 per cent of respondents were unaware of the Witness Protection Scheme. Many also reported delays, repeated adjournments, poor communication and emotional stress during the course of legal proceedings.
The report was submitted by a committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose. The committee was constituted by the apex court earlier this year to examine concerns over insensitive remarks made by judges while hearing and deciding cases involving rape and child sexual assault.
The committee has recommended training and sensitisation of judges to ensure that survivors of rape and sexual violence are treated with dignity and do not feel re-victimised during the justice process.
The Supreme Court had sought the report through the National Judicial Academy after taking suo motu cognisance of multiple High Court judgments in rape and child sexual assault cases where observations made while granting relief to accused persons had triggered widespread outrage. The apex court had described some of the remarks as "inhuman and insensitive" and stressed the need for sensitisation and training of judges.
On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan directed that the report be circulated to all High Courts, state judicial academies and state police academies for training and sensitisation purposes.
The report highlights the prevalence of victim blaming and shaming at various stages of the justice system, including hospitals, police stations and courts.
“The need for sensitivity has become even more urgent in cases involving women and children, especially in light of the increasing prevalence of crimes such as sexual assault, domestic violence, harassment, and abuse. Women in India continue to face systematic discrimination, sexual violence, domestic abuse, and harassment. In such circumstances, insensitive courtroom remarks or judgments that rely on stereotypes may discourage survivors from reporting offences or participating in the justice process,” the report said.
It further observed that “Judicial attitudes in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women have often reproduced "rape myths" and questioned survivor's credibility rather than focusing on the accused's conduct. Such language can re-traumatise survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice. Since courts are institutions entrusted with protecting constitutional values, it is incumbent upon judges to adopt language that is respectful, neutral, and free from stereotypes.”
To address the issue, the committee has prepared a glossary of commonly used terms that blame or shame survivors and suggested more neutral alternatives. The recommendations include avoiding religious or cultural references, refraining from speculation about a survivor's character, and avoiding words that demean or belittle the experience of survivors.
The report also advises against the use of what it describes as "flowery" language that may dilute the gravity of sexual offences. For instance, it recommends using the phrase "committed sexual assault" instead of "satisfied his lust". It further advises judges to avoid rationalising crimes or attributing emotional motives to offenders and instead focus on legal accountability.
The committee noted that women survivors often encounter discriminatory and insensitive remarks throughout the justice delivery system.
“Across all levels of the justice delivery system -- be it the police, hospital, one-stop crisis centre, or courtroom -- women who are survivors of violence face a range of discriminatory, insensitive, and victim-blaming statements,” the report said.
It cited examples of commonly used questions and remarks faced by survivors, including: “The other side of the story is that the terms and phrases like why were you there at that time? Why were you wearing this kind of clothing? Why were you not accompanied by any men? Why did you report so late? Are frequently used. In matrimonial cases, when women approach the police to register a complaint, they are asked in disbelief, "Why now?" After so many years, you have children; this happens in a marriage.”
To make courtrooms more survivor-friendly, the committee emphasised the role of judges in ensuring a supportive environment.
“Women speak up in court only in the hope that the judge would do something to save their honour 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 survivor is deposing. Make sure that unnecessary people are moved out just to make her more comfortable. Not just her words but her body language should be observed by a judge,” the report stated.
Reiterating the importance of judicial language, the committee said: “Language can re-traumatise survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice. Since courts are institutions entrusted with protecting constitutional values, it is incumbent upon judges to adopt language that is respectful, neutral, and free from stereotypes.”
The report also stressed that “Words spoken on the streets cannot make their way into judgements directly. In gender-related cases, judgments have to be founded on things which should be built upon empathy and sensitivity and it would also be for the members of the legal community as a whole to collectively create a language ecosystem which will weed away the offensive or undesirable words or manner of description of certain acts.”
Among its recommendations, the committee called for training judicial officers to ensure immediate protection and support for survivors. It said presiding officers should not wait for formal applications from survivors or vulnerable witnesses and must proactively ensure protection measures, including pre-trial counselling and safeguards against secondary victimisation caused by insensitive language or behaviour.
The training framework proposed by the committee includes several principles for judges handling sexual assault cases. These include ensuring that judicial reasoning is based on evidence rather than stereotypes, assumptions or moral perceptions about a survivor's conduct; exercising caution while using terms such as "outraging modesty"; adopting trauma-informed language; recognising that absence of injuries, delayed reporting or lack of resistance does not imply consent; and using gender-neutral, survivor-centric terminology.
The report further recommends referring to survivors under 18 years as "child" or "minor" in accordance with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, using child-sensitive language, focusing on autonomy, consent and child rights, and recognising both psychological and physical trauma suffered by survivors.
The committee's report also compiles details of 27 landmark Supreme Court judgments aimed at advancing gender justice and constitutional equality, including rulings on dignity, bodily autonomy and survivors protection, which are intended to form part of judicial training programmes.
Nearly 40 per cent of survivors in sexual assault cases feel that courts and lawyers are not always sensitive or empathetic towards their trauma, while 17 per cent reported feeling "scared" while appearing in court and giving testimony, according to a report submitted before the Supreme Court by a committee on gender and justice.
The survey, conducted among sexual assault survivors at the district court level, found that 80.7 per cent of respondents were unaware of the Witness Protection Scheme. Many also reported delays, repeated adjournments, poor communication and emotional stress during the course of legal proceedings.
The report was submitted by a committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose. The committee was constituted by the apex court earlier this year to examine concerns over insensitive remarks made by judges while hearing and deciding cases involving rape and child sexual assault.
The committee has recommended training and sensitisation of judges to ensure that survivors of rape and sexual violence are treated with dignity and do not feel re-victimised during the justice process.
The Supreme Court had sought the report through the National Judicial Academy after taking suo motu cognisance of multiple High Court judgments in rape and child sexual assault cases where observations made while granting relief to accused persons had triggered widespread outrage. The apex court had described some of the remarks as "inhuman and insensitive" and stressed the need for sensitisation and training of judges.
On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan directed that the report be circulated to all High Courts, state judicial academies and state police academies for training and sensitisation purposes.
The report highlights the prevalence of victim blaming and shaming at various stages of the justice system, including hospitals, police stations and courts.
“The need for sensitivity has become even more urgent in cases involving women and children, especially in light of the increasing prevalence of crimes such as sexual assault, domestic violence, harassment, and abuse. Women in India continue to face systematic discrimination, sexual violence, domestic abuse, and harassment. In such circumstances, insensitive courtroom remarks or judgments that rely on stereotypes may discourage survivors from reporting offences or participating in the justice process,” the report said.
It further observed that “Judicial attitudes in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women have often reproduced "rape myths" and questioned survivor's credibility rather than focusing on the accused's conduct. Such language can re-traumatise survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice. Since courts are institutions entrusted with protecting constitutional values, it is incumbent upon judges to adopt language that is respectful, neutral, and free from stereotypes.”
To address the issue, the committee has prepared a glossary of commonly used terms that blame or shame survivors and suggested more neutral alternatives. The recommendations include avoiding religious or cultural references, refraining from speculation about a survivor's character, and avoiding words that demean or belittle the experience of survivors.
The report also advises against the use of what it describes as "flowery" language that may dilute the gravity of sexual offences. For instance, it recommends using the phrase "committed sexual assault" instead of "satisfied his lust". It further advises judges to avoid rationalising crimes or attributing emotional motives to offenders and instead focus on legal accountability.
The committee noted that women survivors often encounter discriminatory and insensitive remarks throughout the justice delivery system.
“Across all levels of the justice delivery system -- be it the police, hospital, one-stop crisis centre, or courtroom -- women who are survivors of violence face a range of discriminatory, insensitive, and victim-blaming statements,” the report said.
It cited examples of commonly used questions and remarks faced by survivors, including: “The other side of the story is that the terms and phrases like why were you there at that time? Why were you wearing this kind of clothing? Why were you not accompanied by any men? Why did you report so late? Are frequently used. In matrimonial cases, when women approach the police to register a complaint, they are asked in disbelief, "Why now?" After so many years, you have children; this happens in a marriage.”
To make courtrooms more survivor-friendly, the committee emphasised the role of judges in ensuring a supportive environment.
“Women speak up in court only in the hope that the judge would do something to save their honour 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 survivor is deposing. Make sure that unnecessary people are moved out just to make her more comfortable. Not just her words but her body language should be observed by a judge,” the report stated.
Reiterating the importance of judicial language, the committee said: “Language can re-traumatise survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice. Since courts are institutions entrusted with protecting constitutional values, it is incumbent upon judges to adopt language that is respectful, neutral, and free from stereotypes.”
The report also stressed that “Words spoken on the streets cannot make their way into judgements directly. In gender-related cases, judgments have to be founded on things which should be built upon empathy and sensitivity and it would also be for the members of the legal community as a whole to collectively create a language ecosystem which will weed away the offensive or undesirable words or manner of description of certain acts.”
Among its recommendations, the committee called for training judicial officers to ensure immediate protection and support for survivors. It said presiding officers should not wait for formal applications from survivors or vulnerable witnesses and must proactively ensure protection measures, including pre-trial counselling and safeguards against secondary victimisation caused by insensitive language or behaviour.
The training framework proposed by the committee includes several principles for judges handling sexual assault cases. These include ensuring that judicial reasoning is based on evidence rather than stereotypes, assumptions or moral perceptions about a survivor's conduct; exercising caution while using terms such as "outraging modesty"; adopting trauma-informed language; recognising that absence of injuries, delayed reporting or lack of resistance does not imply consent; and using gender-neutral, survivor-centric terminology.
The report further recommends referring to survivors under 18 years as "child" or "minor" in accordance with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, using child-sensitive language, focusing on autonomy, consent and child rights, and recognising both psychological and physical trauma suffered by survivors.
The committee's report also compiles details of 27 landmark Supreme Court judgments aimed at advancing gender justice and constitutional equality, including rulings on dignity, bodily autonomy and survivors protection, which are intended to form part of judicial training programmes.
Nearly 40 per cent of survivors in sexual assault cases feel that courts and lawyers are not always sensitive or empathetic towards their trauma, while 17 per cent reported feeling "scared" while appearing in court and giving testimony, according to a report submitted before the Supreme Court by a committee on gender and justice.
The survey, conducted among sexual assault survivors at the district court level, found that 80.7 per cent of respondents were unaware of the Witness Protection Scheme. Many also reported delays, repeated adjournments, poor communication and emotional stress during the course of legal proceedings.
The report was submitted by a committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose. The committee was constituted by the apex court earlier this year to examine concerns over insensitive remarks made by judges while hearing and deciding cases involving rape and child sexual assault.
The committee has recommended training and sensitisation of judges to ensure that survivors of rape and sexual violence are treated with dignity and do not feel re-victimised during the justice process.
The Supreme Court had sought the report through the National Judicial Academy after taking suo motu cognisance of multiple High Court judgments in rape and child sexual assault cases where observations made while granting relief to accused persons had triggered widespread outrage. The apex court had described some of the remarks as "inhuman and insensitive" and stressed the need for sensitisation and training of judges.
On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan directed that the report be circulated to all High Courts, state judicial academies and state police academies for training and sensitisation purposes.
The report highlights the prevalence of victim blaming and shaming at various stages of the justice system, including hospitals, police stations and courts.
“The need for sensitivity has become even more urgent in cases involving women and children, especially in light of the increasing prevalence of crimes such as sexual assault, domestic violence, harassment, and abuse. Women in India continue to face systematic discrimination, sexual violence, domestic abuse, and harassment. In such circumstances, insensitive courtroom remarks or judgments that rely on stereotypes may discourage survivors from reporting offences or participating in the justice process,” the report said.
It further observed that “Judicial attitudes in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women have often reproduced "rape myths" and questioned survivor's credibility rather than focusing on the accused's conduct. Such language can re-traumatise survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice. Since courts are institutions entrusted with protecting constitutional values, it is incumbent upon judges to adopt language that is respectful, neutral, and free from stereotypes.”
To address the issue, the committee has prepared a glossary of commonly used terms that blame or shame survivors and suggested more neutral alternatives. The recommendations include avoiding religious or cultural references, refraining from speculation about a survivor's character, and avoiding words that demean or belittle the experience of survivors.
The report also advises against the use of what it describes as "flowery" language that may dilute the gravity of sexual offences. For instance, it recommends using the phrase "committed sexual assault" instead of "satisfied his lust". It further advises judges to avoid rationalising crimes or attributing emotional motives to offenders and instead focus on legal accountability.
The committee noted that women survivors often encounter discriminatory and insensitive remarks throughout the justice delivery system.
“Across all levels of the justice delivery system -- be it the police, hospital, one-stop crisis centre, or courtroom -- women who are survivors of violence face a range of discriminatory, insensitive, and victim-blaming statements,” the report said.
It cited examples of commonly used questions and remarks faced by survivors, including: “The other side of the story is that the terms and phrases like why were you there at that time? Why were you wearing this kind of clothing? Why were you not accompanied by any men? Why did you report so late? Are frequently used. In matrimonial cases, when women approach the police to register a complaint, they are asked in disbelief, "Why now?" After so many years, you have children; this happens in a marriage.”
To make courtrooms more survivor-friendly, the committee emphasised the role of judges in ensuring a supportive environment.
“Women speak up in court only in the hope that the judge would do something to save their honour 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 survivor is deposing. Make sure that unnecessary people are moved out just to make her more comfortable. Not just her words but her body language should be observed by a judge,” the report stated.
Reiterating the importance of judicial language, the committee said: “Language can re-traumatise survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice. Since courts are institutions entrusted with protecting constitutional values, it is incumbent upon judges to adopt language that is respectful, neutral, and free from stereotypes.”
The report also stressed that “Words spoken on the streets cannot make their way into judgements directly. In gender-related cases, judgments have to be founded on things which should be built upon empathy and sensitivity and it would also be for the members of the legal community as a whole to collectively create a language ecosystem which will weed away the offensive or undesirable words or manner of description of certain acts.”
Among its recommendations, the committee called for training judicial officers to ensure immediate protection and support for survivors. It said presiding officers should not wait for formal applications from survivors or vulnerable witnesses and must proactively ensure protection measures, including pre-trial counselling and safeguards against secondary victimisation caused by insensitive language or behaviour.
The training framework proposed by the committee includes several principles for judges handling sexual assault cases. These include ensuring that judicial reasoning is based on evidence rather than stereotypes, assumptions or moral perceptions about a survivor's conduct; exercising caution while using terms such as "outraging modesty"; adopting trauma-informed language; recognising that absence of injuries, delayed reporting or lack of resistance does not imply consent; and using gender-neutral, survivor-centric terminology.
The report further recommends referring to survivors under 18 years as "child" or "minor" in accordance with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, using child-sensitive language, focusing on autonomy, consent and child rights, and recognising both psychological and physical trauma suffered by survivors.
The committee's report also compiles details of 27 landmark Supreme Court judgments aimed at advancing gender justice and constitutional equality, including rulings on dignity, bodily autonomy and survivors protection, which are intended to form part of judicial training programmes.
