No "Lost Chastity", "Helpless Woman": Top Court Guidelines For Rape Trials

Judgments involving sexual offences need to be more sensitive and survivor-centric, the Supreme Court indicate today, releasing a report by an expert committee on the matter. The report said judges should avoid expressions such as "prosecutrix", "helpless woman", "lost her chastity" and "outraged her modesty". Instead, courts should use neutral terms such as "victim", "survivor", "complainant", "bodily autonomy" and "sexual assault," said the report of the committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Titled Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments, the report was prepared after the committee analysed 125 trial court judgments from across the country with the assistance of State judicial academies. It found a mixed picture in the way judges dealt with victims, witnesses and other vulnerable groups.

The panel said sensitive judicial language was essential to ensure fairness, dignity and impartiality, and stressed that judges should avoid stereotypical or victim-blaming questions. It also said victims should not be forced to interact with the accused.

The report flagged concerns that judicial attitudes in sexual assault cases involving unconscious women have often reproduced "rape myths" by questioning victims' credibility instead of focusing on the accused's conduct.

"Such language can re-traumatize survivors and reinforce social prejudice instead of promoting justice," the report said, while calling for clear court policies, accessible support systems, public awareness campaigns to reduce stigma, and a strict prohibition on gendered and moral commentary.

The committee also proposed replacing several commonly used expressions in judgments. 

For instance, it recommended using "violated bodily autonomy of complainant or victim" instead of "the body of women as playground", and "the survivor experienced harm or trauma" instead of phrases such as "victimisation, soul destroyed".

It said courts should also avoid terms such as "poor helpless minor girl", "(an accused) fuelled by lust", "satisfy his illicit lust", "spoiled her childhood", "ruined life" and "haunt throughout her life".

Words such as "honour", "shame", "chastity", "bashfulness" and "sanctity", the report said, are rooted in patriarchal ideas linking a woman's worth to her sexual purity or family reputation. Judicial reasoning should instead focus on consent, dignity, bodily autonomy and constitutional rights.

According to the report, describing sexual assault in terms of "lust" implicitly treats male sexual desire as uncontrollable and weakens the seriousness of the offence. Courts should instead use legally precise terms such as "sexual assault", "sexual violence" or "offence".

The committee also cautioned judges against drawing adverse conclusions because of delayed reporting, absence of injuries or lack of physical resistance.

"Absence of injuries, delayed reporting, or lack of resistance does not imply consent. Victims may respond differently to trauma. Courts should avoid adverse inferences based on stereotypical expectations of victim behaviour," it said.

The report also asked trial judges to prevent insulting or intrusive cross-examination, particularly questions about a survivor's sexual history. It said judges should ensure basic courtesies such as offering survivors a chair and water, remove unnecessary people from the courtroom during testimony, and remain attentive to both their words and body language.

It stressed that courts should not remain silent spectators when victims face embarrassing, intimidating, or irrelevant questioning, including queries about their clothing or behaviour before the crime.

"It is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilized society to judge a woman solely based on her clothing or to draw conclusions about her virtue or modesty," the report warned.

The committee also recommended pre-trial counselling, in-camera proceedings, witness protection measures, and legal assistance for survivors. It said presiding officers should not wait for victims or vulnerable witnesses to seek protection, as ensuring their safety is a legal obligation.

The committee was constituted following a February 10, 2026, Supreme Court judgment that called for guidelines to promote sensitivity and compassion among judges dealing with sexual offences and cases involving vulnerable persons.

The judgment came after the top court took suo motu cognisance of a controversial order from the Allahabad High Court which observed that grabbing breast of a minor and opening drawstrings of a pyjamas would not amount to attempt to rape.