The Supreme Court today has flagged concerns over the language and terminology used by courts in cases of sexual violence, observing that even binding sensitisation guidelines issued earlier are not being consistently followed.
Hearing the matter arising from an order of the Allahabad High Court, the Bench noted submissions that a 2023 handbook issued under the Court’s directions, aimed at ensuring sensitive, victim-centric language, has been breached not only by subordinate courts but also by High Courts in certain cases.
Counsel pointed out that the handbook expressly prohibits imputations of consent or inferred consent based on lack of resistance, yet such language continued to surface in judicial orders. Referring to the impugned High Court order, it was submitted:
“The High Court says she is responsible, whereas the handbook clearly says such expressions must not be used. Imputation of consent because of lack of resistance has been taken out of the realm of gender violence.”
The Court also expressed concern over the use of legally loaded terms such as “preparation” in the context of sexual offences. Senior counsel argued that while the distinction between preparation and attempt exists in criminal law, its use in sexual violence cases requires extreme sensitivity, as such terminology can trivialise the nature of the offence.
“Words make a hell of a difference. In a case where the victim was dragged, disrobed and assaulted, calling it ‘preparation’ shows a lack of sensitivity,” counsel submitted.
The Bench acknowledged that language must be simple and comprehensible, not only for legal professionals but also for victims and their families. “After all, we serve the common man. Language should be such that even the victim’s family can understand,” the Court observed.
While noting that previous exercises, such as the 2023 handbook and directions to High Courts to frame guidelines, had limited impact, the Bench indicated that a more comprehensive and structured approach was required.
The Court said it was considering requesting the National Judicial Academy to undertake a time-bound, pan-India exercise, involving judges, senior advocates, academics and domain experts, to prepare a detailed report on appropriate judicial language and sensitisation in sexual offence cases.
“This cannot be a small booklet. It may even run into volumes. Where and in what circumstances what is the right word to be chosen is the real challenge,” the Bench remarked.
The Court also mooted the idea of two separate resources, one for judges, lawyers and prosecutors, and another simplified booklet for victims and the general public, so that legal processes are better understood by those directly affected.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that it would first address the merits of the case concerning the victim, before taking up the broader issue of judicial guidelines. “We are directly concerned about the victim and equally concerned about the family. That chapter must be closed first,” the Court said.
The matter is expected to be taken up further after the Court seeks inputs from the National Judicial Academy and other stakeholders.
Appearances
Petitioner- Ms. Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Ranjan, AOR Ms. Siny Sara Varghese, Adv. Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhuwan Ribhu, Adv. Ms. Rachna Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Shashi, AOR Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Taruna Panwar, Adv. Ms. Surpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR
Respondent- Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sharanya, Adv. Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sharanya, Adv. Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Adv.