Why were you out so late? What were you wearing? Why did you wait years to report this? For decades, such questions—posed in police stations, hospitals and courtrooms alike—have shifted the burden of proof from the accused to the survivor. The Supreme Court's new handbook, 'Judgments and Gender,' released on August 3, is an attempt to change that script, urging judges, lawyers and investigators to replace victim-blaming language and stereotyped reasoning with sensitivity and compassion.
The handbook builds on a 2023 predecessor that focused narrowly on gender-neutral vocabulary. This one goes further, digging into how survivors are actually treated through the life of a case, from the first FIR to final testimony, and lays out safeguards judges can use to prevent courts from traumatising the very people they are meant to protect.
What prompted the Supreme Court to publish this handbook?
In March 2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a Allahabad High Court judgement, which ruled that a man grabbing a woman's breasts and loosening her pyjama strings is only a 'preparation' and does not constitute an 'attempt to rape'. Setting aside the order, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant requested the Director of the National Judicial Academy at Bhopal, Justice Aniruddha Bose, to form a committee of experts to prepare a comprehensive report on guidelines to inculcate sensitivity and compassion into judges and judicial processes for handling sexual offences and other vulnerable cases.
Who were the committee members and what did they do?
Justice Bose formed a committee comprising former Chief Justice of Gujarat HC Justice Sonia Gokani, former Director General of Police of Madhya Pradesh Anuradha Shankar, Supreme Court advocate Surat Singh, and Anthropology Professor Lucy T V Zehol from the North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong. They sent a questionnaire to all the State Judicial Academies to get feedback from various stakeholders of the criminal justice system, especially witnesses and victims, regarding the court proceedings, the language used, and the sensitivity of judges and lawyers towards them, among others. They also analysed 125 trial court judgments from across the country to study the mindset of judges while deciding such matters.
What was the committee's observation on the trial court judgments?
The committee opined that across all levels of the justice delivery system, be it the police station, hospital, one-stop crisis centre, or courtroom, women survivors of violence face a range of discriminatory, insensitive, and victim-blaming statements which, instead of building the survivor's confidence, further traumatise and deter them from seeking justice. But there were also cases where judges were highly sensitive towards the victim, witness and vulnerable groups.
What were the key issues highlighted by the committee in the handbook after the analysis?
They include gender-stereotyping, victim-blaming, and insensitive questions during cross-examination, including insinuations about the victim's sexual history.
What are the typical victim-blaming questions?
Victim-blaming is part of rape culture where the responsibility is totally shifted to the victim by questioning her conduct, lifestyle, clothing, delay in reporting, and past relationships. Questions 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, etc., are frequently posed to victims of sexual violence. In matrimonial cases, police ask women why they are reporting after so many years, along with statements that attempt to normalise the situation or guilt-trip them by citing their children's future. Similar questions follow women even in one-stop centres, hospitals and jails, the committee said.
What are the legal protections available against victim-blaming in Indian law?
The committee said Indian law already has safeguards against victim-blaming, which help prevent secondary victimisation during trial and uphold victims' dignity and privacy. Section 146 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act (currently Section 149 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) barred any insinuation about a complainant's sexual reputation or character during cross-examination. Likewise, Sections 154 and 155 of the BSA empower the court to control indecent, scandalous, insulting, or annoying questions being put to victims during examination.
What can courts do to prevent secondary victimisation of survivors or complainants?
The committee said victims 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 such as a chair and water. A judge must be a little more alert and vigilant while the victim is deposing. Unnecessary people should be moved out just to make her more comfortable. "Not just her words but her body language should be observed by a judge," the committee added. The Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, which forms part of Annexure of the handbook, also helps victims heal and recover.
How has the anti-stereotyping jurisprudence evolved over the years?
The committee said judicial approaches in India have consistently rejected the use of gender-based stereotypes in adjudication, particularly in cases involving sexual offences and gender justice. In Aparna Bhat v State of MP (2021), the Supreme Court held that courts must avoid stereotypes relating to a victim's clothing, lifestyle, marital status, or sexual history, emphasising that such factors are irrelevant to consent or credibility and underscoring the need for judicial sensitivity training. In Joseph Shine v Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court rejected notions of women as the property of husbands. The Kerala High Court, in December 2024, held that it is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilised society to judge a woman solely based on her clothing or to draw conclusions about her virtue or modesty, as such judgments are rooted in rigid notions of patriarchy. Likewise, Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) invalidated triple talaq for perpetuating gender inequality.
What are the procedural safeguards suggested by the committee for anti-stereotyping and a victim-centric approach?
Legal assistance to the victim: The landmark SC judgment in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v Union of India obligates the Investigating Officer to ensure legal assistance to a rape victim right from the time of filing of the FIR till the end of the case. This can be extended to victims of other serious crimes. If legal assistance is not provided, or no advocate is engaged by the victim privately, or the Presiding Officer is not satisfied with the answer of the IO, the court can direct the district legal services authority to intervene. The committee also stressed the need for periodical monitoring of the empanelment of advocates by the Principal District Judge and Superintendent of Police.
Witness or Victim Protection measures: The committee said it is the duty of the presiding officer to ensure victim or witness protection without waiting for an application. The Supreme Court also approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, formulated by the Union Home Ministry, it pointed out.
Pre-trial Victim Counselling: Trial judges ought to ensure that victims undergo such counselling to alleviate anxiety and build confidence.
In-camera trial: Trials in sexual offences and sensitive matters need to be held in camera. Printing or publication of any material relating to the case is prohibited, though it is made permissible subject to maintaining confidentiality of names and identity.
Witness as a guest: Witnesses are crucial for justice and should be treated as guests by the court.
How does the handbook differ from the 2023 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes'?
The previous handbook, which was an initiative of then CJI DY Chandrachud, focused on the use of unprejudiced vocabulary and contained a glossary of gender-stereotypical terms with alternatives. The 2026 handbook, in addition to this, discusses the practical realities faced by victims and complainants of gender-based offences in Indian courts, to make courtrooms and judgments gender-sensitive, trauma-informed and survivor-centric.
The committee prepared a list of over 50 problematic words and phrases and suggested neutral and legally appropriate alternatives for them. Some of them include:
Outraged the modesty: Sexual assault or violation of bodily autonomy
Fueled by lust: Sexual violence; avoid attributing crime to 'lust'
Tutored child: Child witness; avoid assumptions about influence
Disrobing: Forced removal of clothing (part of sexual assault)
Honour, shame: Avoid the words, focus on survivor's rights
Stigma as inevitable consequence: Focus on justice or rehabilitation
Sex slave: Survivor subjected to repeated sexual violence or exploitation while being kept under control
Illiterate or rustic witness: Witness (mention education only if legally relevant)
She was enticed away: Accused lured or abducted victim by gaining trust
Concubine, Keep, Mistress: Partner or girlfriend (in relation to women)
Homosexual and other related words: Intersex
Prosecutrix: Victim or survivor