Last year, a judge in a POCSO matter asked the mother of a nine-year-old victim whether her daughter had been "playing outside unsupervised" at the time of the assault. The question was not about evidence. It was about blame. The mother understood what was being asked. So did I. The child's location was being treated as an explanation for the crime committed against her.
That question would not survive the Supreme Court's new report. Whether the judge who asked it will read the report is a different matter.
On August 3, 2026, the Supreme Court released "Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments," a report prepared by a five-member expert committee chaired by former Justice Aniruddha Bose. CJI Surya Kant approved it and directed all courts to follow its recommendations. The report examines 125 trial court judgments from across India and identifies patterns of insensitive language, stereotypical reasoning, and courtroom conduct that re-traumatise victims in the process of adjudicating the offence against them.
This is not the Court's first attempt. In 2023, under CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, the Supreme Court published a "Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes," a glossary of terms judges should stop using and alternatives they should adopt. "Seductress" was to be replaced with "woman." "Promiscuous" was to be replaced with "person who has had multiple sexual partners." "Eve-teasing" was to be replaced with "sexual harassment." The handbook was sophisticated, comprehensive, and largely ignored. CJI Surya Kant said as much in February 2026 when he dismissed it as "too Harvard-oriented" and observed that it "may not be understood by the rape survivor, her relatives or commoners."
That remark was not diplomatic. It was also not wrong. And it explains precisely why the 2026 report exists.
The difference between the two documents is the difference between theory and practice, between what judges should think and what judges should do.
The 2023 handbook identified problematic language. The 2026 report identifies problematic courtroom behaviour. The handbook told judges to stop using the word "prosecutrix." The report tells judges to stop asking victims about their clothing. The handbook suggested alternative vocabulary. The report directs judges to proactively protect victims from irrelevant and humiliating questioning during cross-examination, particularly questions about sexual history. The handbook was a reference document. The report is a procedural manual.
Three specific recommendations in the 2026 report would change daily practice in trial courts if implemented.
First, the report asks trial judges to verify, at the outset of every sexual offence case, whether the victim has been provided legal assistance from the FIR stage itself. In my experience, this happens in less than half of cases. Victims arrive at trial without understanding the process, without a lawyer, and without any preparation for what cross-examination involves. The report does not merely recommend legal aid. It asks judges to make its provision a precondition for proceeding. That is a structural shift. Currently, the absence of a victim's lawyer delays nothing. If the report is followed, it should delay everything until the gap is filled.
Second, the report directs judges to facilitate access to victim compensation schemes without requiring formal applications. Under current practice, compensation under Section 397 BNSS requires a separate application, often filed months after conviction, often forgotten by overworked legal aid lawyers. The report treats compensation as an integral part of the trial process, not an afterthought. If the victim is entitled, the judge should ensure she receives it. The burden shifts from the victim to the court.
Third, and most consequentially, the report urges judges to ensure victim and witness protection without requiring formal applications. In POCSO cases and in cases under BNS Section 64 (rape), intimidation of witnesses and victims is routine. The accused's family is often present in the courtroom. The victim is cross-examined in full view of the person who assaulted her. In-camera proceedings are available under law but rarely ordered unless specifically requested. The report asks judges to order protection proactively. Not on application. On assessment.
The trigger for this report was an Allahabad High Court judgment from 2025 that held grabbing a minor girl's breasts, breaking the string of her pyjamas, and attempting to pull them down amounted only to "preparation" to commit rape, not "attempt." The Supreme Court intervened in February 2026 and observed that efforts to encourage sensitivity in sexual offence cases had "not borne the fruit that was expected." The 2023 handbook had not worked. The Allahabad judgment proved it.
Every practitioner who handles sexual offence cases knows what the 2026 report is trying to fix. It is trying to fix the gap between what the law says and what the courtroom does. The law says a survivor's testimony does not require corroboration. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) settled this four decades ago. The courtroom still asks: "Was there anyone else present?" The law says the two-finger test is impermissible. Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013) buried it. The test is still conducted in some district hospitals. The law says gender stereotypes cannot form the basis of judicial reasoning. Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) directed gender-sensitisation of judges. The Allahabad judgment arrived four years later.
The 2026 report cannot solve what a handbook, multiple judgments, and decades of judicial training have not. Language does not change by directive. Attitudes do not change by glossary. The courtroom culture that asks a mother why her daughter was playing outside is not a language problem. It is a belief system. And belief systems do not read reports.
But the report does something the 2023 handbook did not. It moves the burden. The handbook told judges to be better. The report tells judges to do specific things: verify legal aid, order compensation, ensure protection, stop irrelevant questioning. If a judge fails to do these things, the failure is now documented, reviewable, and appealable. That is not sensitivity training. That is accountability. And accountability, unlike sensitivity, can be enforced.
The CJI called the 2023 handbook "Harvard." He built the 2026 report in "Bhopal," through the National Judicial Academy, with input from State Judicial Academies, District Legal Services Authorities, and 125 trial court judgments. Whether the courtroom in Patiala House or Saket or Karkardooma will follow it depends on whether district judges treat it as mandatory or aspirational. The Supreme Court has made its intent clear. The question, as always, is what happens three floors below.
Author Bhavya Razshree is an Advocate practicing at Delhi Courts & Aditya Ashok is an Public Policy Consultant at Government Advisory. Views are personal.