SC Issues New Guidelines For Rape Trials, Bars Terms Like 'Modesty Outraged' & 'Helpless Woman'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken a big step towards making the language of hearing and decisions related to sexual crimes more sensitive. The apex court, while making public the report of the expert committee headed by former judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, said that judicial language in such cases should be victim-centric, respectful and neutral. The report advised judges to avoid using traditional terms such as 'helpless woman', 'lost chastity', 'outraged modesty' and 'prosecutrix' and instead use modern and sensitive terms such as 'victim', 'survivor', 'complainant', 'bodily autonomy' and 'sexual assault'.

Was the report prepared after studying 125 decisions?

The report titled 'Judgements and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgements' has been prepared on the basis of a detailed study of 125 judgements of trial courts across the country. The analysis, conducted in collaboration with various state judicial academies, found that in many cases the language of judgements inadvertently promotes gender bias and social stereotypes.

Are major changes in judicial language recommended?

The expert committee says that the language of the courts should be such that the victim does not become a victim of mental trauma again. According to the report, words like "respect", "shame", "purity" and "hesitation" reflect patriarchal thinking and link a woman's dignity to her sexual purity. Instead, consent, dignity, bodily autonomy and constitutional rights should be at the centre of judicial deliberations.

Should the thinking of blaming the victim also be questioned?

The report said that in many cases the courts focused more on the credibility of the victim rather than the conduct of the accused. The language of judgements, particularly in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women, reinforced myths associated with rape. The committee clarified that absence of injury, delay in filing the complaint or absence of physical resistance cannot be considered proof of consent under any circumstances.

Has the role of judges been decided even during cross-examination?

The committee has asked trial judges to immediately stop abusive, intimidating or unnecessary cross-examination. In particular, questions related to the survivor's sexual history, clothing or personal life should not be allowed. The report states that the court cannot remain a mere silent spectator but must play an active role in protecting the dignity and rights of the victim.

Was there any emphasis on creating a better environment for the victims?

The report has suggested that survivors should be provided with proper seating arrangements, drinking water and a safe environment during the testimony. If necessary, non-essential people should be removed from the courtroom and the body language and mental state of the victim should also be taken care of. It has also been recommended to strengthen arrangements like in-camera hearings, legal aid, pre-trial counselling and protection of witnesses.

Was the committee formed after the controversial Allahabad HC decision?

This expert committee was constituted following the order given by the Supreme Court on 10 February 2026, which asked to prepare behavioural and language guidelines for judges hearing sexual offences and sensitive cases. The order came after taking suo motu cognisance of the controversial judgement of the Allahabad High Court, in which widespread objection was raised to some of the findings in the case involving a minor. The Supreme Court had then clarified that it is not enough for justice to be fair, but its language should also be in accordance with the respect and sensitivity of the victim.