Don't use 'lost chastity', 'outraged modesty' in rape cases: SC guidelines
The Supreme Court has issued a fresh set of guidelines urging judges across the country to eliminate gender-stereotypical and victim-blaming language from judgments in rape
The Supreme Court has issued a fresh set of guidelines urging judges across the country to eliminate gender-stereotypical and victim-blaming language from judgments in rape and sexual assault cases, saying courts must adopt a more sensitive, survivor-centric approach while dealing with such offences. The recommendations are part of a report released on Monday by an expert committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, Bar and Bench reported. Titled Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments, the report was prepared after examining 125 trial court judgments from across India. Read Full Story FOCUS ON CONSENT, NOT 'MODESTY' The panel asked judges to stop using expressions such as "prosecutrix", "helpless woman", "lost her chastity", and "outraged her modesty", saying such phrases are rooted in patriarchal stereotypes and can re-traumatise survivors. Instead, courts should use neutral and legally accurate terms such as "victim", "survivor", "complainant", "sexual assault" and "bodily autonomy".
It also advised replacing phrases like "poor helpless minor girl", "fuelled by lust", "satisfy his illicit lust", "spoilt her childhood" and "ruined her life" with language that focusses on the offence and its impact rather than moral judgments. According to the report, words such as "honour", "shame", "chastity", "bashfulness" and "sanctity" reinforce outdated notions that tie a woman's worth to her sexual purity or family reputation. Judicial reasoning, it said, should instead be anchored in consent, dignity, bodily autonomy and constitutional rights. NO MORAL POLICING, NO RAPE MYTHS The committee cautioned judges against relying on stereotypes while assessing sexual assault cases. It said courts should not draw adverse inferences merely because a survivor delayed reporting the crime, did not physically resist, or had no visible injuries. "Absence of injuries, delayed reporting, or lack of resistance does not imply consent.
Victims may respond differently to trauma," the report said, warning courts against applying stereotypical expectations of how survivors should behave. It also urged judges to avoid describing rape as a "physical relationship" in cases involving non-consensual acts or minor victims, recommending that courts use legally precise terms such as "rape", "sexual assault" or "sexual violence". The report further noted that describing sexual offences as acts driven by "lust" tends to normalise male sexual aggression and dilutes the gravity of the crime. PROTECT SURVIVORS DURING TRIAL The panel stressed that judges must actively prevent humiliating or intrusive cross-examination, particularly questions about a survivor's sexual history, clothing or conduct before the alleged offence. "It is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilised society to judge a woman solely based on her clothing or draw conclusions about her virtue or modesty," the report observed.
The BriefWire