Patna: The Supreme Court has approved a set of guidelines prepared by the National Judicial Academy (NJA) directing judges to decide sexual offence cases on the basis of evidence rather than a survivor’s character, clothing, lifestyle or perceived morality. The directions also call for the use of respectful and gender-neutral language while hearing such cases and writing judgments.
The guidelines were prepared by an expert committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose after the apex court sought a framework to improve judicial sensitivity in cases involving sexual violence against women and children.
Survivor-Centric Approach Recommended
The NJA report states that judicial language forms the foundation of impartial and dignified justice. It warns that insensitive observations, gender stereotypes and victim-blaming remarks can retraumatise survivors and weaken confidence in the justice system.
The committee has advised courts to avoid expressions such as “outraging modesty”, “prosecutrix”, “helpless woman”, “lust”, “honour”, “shame” and “purity”. Instead, judges have been urged to adopt respectful, neutral and survivor-centric terminology.
The guidelines further state that:
- Decisions should be based solely on evidence and applicable law.
- Lack of physical injuries, absence of resistance or delay in filing a complaint should not automatically be treated as evidence of consent.
- The terms “child” or “minor” should be used for persons below 18 years of age.
- Courts should prioritise bodily autonomy, consent, dignity and child rights.
- Cross-examination concerning a survivor’s sexual history, clothing or private life, unless legally relevant, should not be permitted.
- In-camera proceedings and video-link facilities should be provided where necessary to protect witnesses.
Supreme Court Objected to Patna High Court Verdict
The guidelines gained urgency after the Supreme Court expressed concern over a July 9 judgment of the Patna High Court, which acquitted an accused of attempted rape.
The High Court had held that forcibly pressing a woman’s breasts and attempting to remove her salwar inside a locked room did not amount to attempted rape, though it observed that the conduct constituted an offence relating to outraging her modesty.
While hearing another matter on July 14 concerning an Allahabad High Court judgment on attempted rape, the Bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant questioned the reasoning adopted in the Patna High Court decision.
The Bench observed that judges must demonstrate greater sensitivity and conduct thorough legal research before delivering judgments. It indicated that the Patna High Court ruling would be examined in detail before passing a comprehensive order.
Background of the Bihar Case
The Patna High Court case arose from an FIR lodged in Banka district on January 20, 2008.
According to the complaint, a young woman had visited a photography studio with her father. She alleged that the studio owner took her inside on the pretext of taking a photograph, locked the door, removed his clothes, attempted to pull down her salwar and pressed her chest with the intention of committing rape.
In 2013, a trial court convicted the accused of attempted rape and wrongful confinement and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
The accused challenged the conviction before the Patna High Court, where the appeal remained pending for about 13 years.
Why the High Court Acquitted the Accused
In its July 9 judgment, the Patna High Court acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence of attempted rape beyond reasonable doubt.
The court cited three principal reasons:
No evidence of penetration: The court held that while force had been used and there was an attempt to remove the complainant’s clothing, there was no medical or other evidence demonstrating a direct attempt to commit rape.
Procedural shortcomings: The investigating officer and the medical officer were not examined during the trial, and the only independent witness turned hostile.
Contradictions in testimony: The court noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and observed that although conviction in sexual offence cases can rest on the survivor’s testimony alone, such testimony must be wholly reliable if unsupported by independent corroboration.
The court accepted the complainant’s explanation for the one-day delay in lodging the FIR, noting her statement that the police had initially refused to register the complaint.
Origin of the NJA Guidelines
The Supreme Court had earlier examined another attempted rape case arising from an Allahabad High Court judgment.
In March 2025, the Allahabad High Court ruled that acts such as untying a girl’s pyjama drawstring or grabbing her private parts amounted only to preparation for rape. In February 2026, the Supreme Court overturned that reasoning, holding that such acts could constitute an attempt to commit rape depending on the facts.
Following that decision, the apex court directed the National Judicial Academy to prepare comprehensive guidelines for judges dealing with sexual offence cases. It emphasised that the framework should reflect India’s legal and social context while promoting sensitivity, fairness and dignity.
The court also asked the expert committee to identify derogatory words and expressions commonly used across Indian languages and dialects so that police officers, lawyers and judges could avoid language that undermines survivors.
Nationwide Implementation
The Supreme Court has directed that the approved handbook be uploaded on the websites of the Supreme Court, High Courts and district courts. It will also be circulated to the National Judicial Academy, state judicial academies, National Law Universities and university law departments for training and reference.
Legal Position on Attempt to Rape
The distinction between preparation and attempt has been clarified in earlier Supreme Court decisions.
Preparation refers to planning or arranging the means to commit an offence before execution begins.
An attempt begins once a person moves beyond preparation and takes a direct step towards committing the offence, even if the crime is ultimately not completed. Indian criminal law recognises that such conduct may attract punishment because it reflects both criminal intent and an overt act towards the commission of the offence.
Expert Views
Senior Advocate Sarvadev Singh of the Patna High Court said the High Court delivered its judgment according to its interpretation of the law, though he acknowledged that the decision could generate public debate.
Nidhi Singh, Associate Professor and psychologist at Magadh Mahila College, said judgments perceived as reducing the seriousness of sexual offences could weaken women’s confidence in the justice system and discourage survivors from pursuing legal remedies.
