Subscribe
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court has released a new handbook asking judges across the country to fundamentally change how they write judgements and conduct court proceedings in cases involving sexual offences and vulnerable persons. The book replaces patriarchal language with survivor-centric terminology and introduces trauma-informed courtroom practices aimed at preventing the re-traumatisation of victims.
The handbook, titled Judgments and Gender (Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments), was prepared by a five-member committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose after the Supreme Court, in its February 10, 2026 judgement, directed the National Judicial Academy to frame practical guidelines for gender-sensitive adjudication. On July 14, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant approved the report and directed all courts to strictly follow its recommendations.
The court also ordered that the handbook be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court, High Courts and district courts, while directing Directors General of Police and Directors of Prosecution across states to ensure police officers adopt the recommended terminology while recording FIRs and filing chargesheets.
The committee comprised Justice Bose, former Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sonia Gokani, former Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police Anuradha Shankar, Supreme Court advocate Dr Surat Singh and anthropologist Prof Lucy TV Zehol. It examined 125 trial court judgements from across the country with assistance from State Judicial Academies before formulating the recommendations.
The report states that judicial language is not merely a matter of etiquette but directly affects how courts perceive complainants, interpret evidence and administer justice. "Sensitive judicial language is therefore not merely a matter of politeness; it is essential to ensuring fairness, dignity, and impartiality in adjudication," the handbook says.
It notes that insensitive observations rooted in stereotypes can discourage survivors from reporting offences, reinforce social prejudice and undermine confidence in the justice system.
From 'prosecutrix' to 'survivor': A shift towards dignity and bodily autonomy
One of the handbook's most significant changes is its recommendation to discard several expressions that have routinely appeared in Indian court judgements for decades.
Among the most notable is the replacement of the word "prosecutrix" with "victim", "survivor" or "complainant", observing that the former is merely a procedural label while the latter terms recognise the dignity and lived experiences of those approaching the justice system.
Similarly, judges have been asked to avoid expressions such as "helpless woman", "helpless female", "poor helpless minor girl" and "self-respecting woman", replacing them with neutral expressions such as "survivor", "complainant", "victim" or "child survivor" depending on the context.
The handbook also recommends abandoning language that frames sexual violence through ideas of morality or family honour.
For instance, judges are advised not to describe rape as something that "destroyed the soul of a helpless woman", "spoiled her childhood", "ruined her life", or caused her to "lose her chastity”. Instead, the report says judgements should describe the legal injury more precisely by stating that the survivor's bodily autonomy was violated, that the crime caused severe trauma, or that it had serious consequences requiring continuing support and rehabilitation.
The glossary also discourages courts from using expressions like:
‘The body of women as playground’
‘Victim of another person's lust’
‘Satisfy his illicit lust’
‘Bid to defile chastity’
‘Outraged the modesty’
‘Lost her chastity’
‘Honour’ and ‘shame’
Instead, judges have been encouraged to use legally accurate descriptions such as sexual assault, sexual violence, violation of bodily autonomy, violation of personal integrity, and survivor experienced harm or trauma.
The committee says these expressions are not simply stylistic improvements but reflect a shift in legal reasoning.
Instead of viewing sexual offences through the lens of morality or the survivor's sexual purity, courts are asked to focus on constitutional values such as dignity, equality, bodily autonomy and individual rights.
The handbook also advises judges to avoid making speculative observations about complainants. Terms such as "gold digger", references to hormonal changes, temptation, lust, or remarks about a complainant belonging to a "non-permissive society" should not appear in judgements unless they are legally relevant.
Similarly, the report says courts should not refer to witnesses as "illiterate" or "rustic" unless education is directly relevant to the case, nor should derogatory words like "whore", "fallen woman" or "prostitute" be used where neutral alternatives such as "survivor", "victim" or "sex worker" are appropriate.
The handbook also extends its recommendations to LGBTQIA+ persons, encouraging courts to adopt respectful and contemporary terminology while referring to people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and recommending the use of the broader framework of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Expression and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC).
Beyond replacing individual words, the committee repeatedly emphasises that judicial reasoning itself must be free from stereotypes.
It cautions judges against assuming that delayed reporting, absence of injuries, lack of resistance or calm behaviour after an assault indicates consent or false implication. The report says survivors respond differently to trauma, and courts should rely on evidence, forensic material and testimony rather than social assumptions.
The handbook specifically states that judicial reasoning should be based on evidence "and not stereotypes, assumptions, or moral perceptions about the victim's conduct or character", while reminding courts that absence of injuries or delayed reporting should never be treated as proof of consent.
The committee further warns courts against generalising how survivors are expected to behave after experiencing sexual violence, observing that reactions to trauma vary from person to person. Victim-blaming language, comments on appearance, clothing, lifestyle, sexual history or character should therefore be avoided unless they are directly relevant to the legal issues before the court.
Prevent survivors' re-traumatisation
While much of the handbook focuses on changing the language used in judgements, it makes clear that gender sensitivity cannot end with replacing a few words. It argues that survivors often experience trauma at every stage of the criminal justice system, from the police station and hospital to the courtroom, and asks judges to play an active role in ensuring the justice process itself does not become another source of victimisation.
"The Indian judiciary is moving from a traditional, accused-focused system to one that centres on victims—protecting their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. The aim is to reduce secondary victimisation," the handbook states.
To achieve this, the committee recommends a series of "compassionate court practices" that judges should proactively adopt rather than waiting for applications from survivors.
One of the key recommendations is ensuring survivors receive legal assistance from the earliest stage of the criminal justice process. If legal aid has not been provided, courts should immediately direct District Legal Services Authorities or senior police officers to ensure compliance within 48 hours.
The report also calls for stronger implementation of witness protection measures. Referring to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, it says judges should not wait for victims or witnesses to seek protection but should treat it as a legal obligation to proactively assess whether protective measures are required.
Another recommendation is pre-trial counselling for survivors to reduce anxiety and build confidence before court proceedings. Judges, the handbook says, should ensure such counselling is made available wherever necessary.
The handbook reiterates that trials involving rape and other sexual offences should ordinarily be held in camera, as mandated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), while maintaining complete confidentiality of survivors' identities in line with the Supreme Court's judgement. Only initials or pseudonyms should be used in proceedings and publications.
The committee also asks judges to rethink how witnesses are treated in Indian courts.
Describing witnesses as "guests" invited to assist the court in arriving at the truth, the handbook says they should not be subjected to repeated adjournments, long waits or poor treatment, all of which discourage participation in the criminal justice system. Quoting an earlier Supreme Court judgement, it notes that witnesses often fear court summons not because of cross-examination but because they may spend entire days waiting without being examined.
A significant portion of the handbook is devoted to preventing secondary victimisation during trial.
It asks judges to actively regulate cross-examination and prohibit questions intended to shame or humiliate survivors. Questions relating to a complainant's sexual history, clothing, character or morality, the committee says, should not be permitted unless they are legally indispensable. Courts are also encouraged to allow testimony through video links or behind screens for children and other vulnerable witnesses to minimise trauma caused by confronting the accused.
The report notes that judges have a duty to ensure survivors feel safe inside courtrooms by preventing unnecessary public presence during testimony, ensuring basic courtesies such as seating and drinking water, and remaining attentive to a witness's body language during deposition. It says the courtroom should become a space where survivors feel heard rather than judged.
Drawing from consultations and survivor testimonies, the committee records that women frequently encounter insensitive and victim-blaming remarks across institutions. Survivors are often told to "compromise" to save their families, questioned about their clothing, appearance or behaviour, or accused of exaggerating their complaints. The report says such responses deepen trauma and discourage survivors from approaching the justice system.
The handbook asks judges to adopt a trauma-informed approach, recognising that delayed reporting, absence of injuries, inconsistencies in testimony or a survivor's demeanour cannot automatically be interpreted as evidence of consent or fabrication. Instead, courts should assess each case based on evidence while remaining conscious that trauma manifests differently in different people.
Why the Supreme Court felt a new handbook was necessary
The handbook was prepared following the Supreme Court's February 10, 2026 judgment setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had held allegations of grabbing a 14-year-old girl's breasts, dragging her towards a culvert and breaking the string of her lower garment amounted only to preparation for rape and not an attempt to rape. The apex court criticised the High Court's reasoning and directed the National Judicial Academy to prepare practical guidelines to improve judicial sensitivity in cases involving women, children and other vulnerable persons.
The committee's study of 125 trial court judgements found a mixed picture. While several of them demonstrated sensitivity towards survivors and recognised their rights, others continued to rely on stereotypes, moral assumptions and victim-blaming narratives. The handbook cites examples of judges and authorities questioning survivors about why they were outside at a particular time, what clothes they were wearing, why they delayed reporting offences or whether they had previously been in relationships. It says such questions have no place in evidence-based adjudication.
The report also points to the need for continuous judicial education, observing that sensitivity cannot be achieved through language alone but requires sustained training.
Unlike the Supreme Court's 2023 Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, which primarily focused on identifying and replacing stereotype-promoting language, the new handbook expands the conversation to courtroom management, victim protection, judicial reasoning and trauma-informed adjudication. The 2023 handbook was criticised during hearings in the Allahabad case as being too theoretical, prompting the Supreme Court to seek practical guidelines that trial judges could implement in day-to-day proceedings.
