'Avoid Victim Shaming, Patriarchal Stereotypes In Sexual Offence Judgments' : NJA Panel Gives Guidelines To Judges

The Expert Committee constituted by the National Judicial Academy (NJA) pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions has released a comprehensive set of guidelines urging judges to adopt gender-sensitive, survivor-centric language and compassionate courtroom practices while dealing with sexual offence cases. Among its key recommendations, the committee has advised courts to avoid expressions such as "outraging modesty", "prosecutrix", "lust", "helpless female", "lost her chastity", and references to a woman's "honour" or "shame", stating that such terminology reinforces patriarchal stereotypes and can retraumatise survivors.

The report, prepared by a committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, was submitted in compliance with the Supreme Court's February 10, 2026 directions in a suo motu case initiated over an Allahabad High Court's controversial judgment in a sexual offences against a minor. The Supreme Court had decided to revisit a handbook released in 2023 to deal with gender stereotypes, and requested the NJA to prepare guidelines whihc are rooted in the Indian cultural ethos.

The committee comprised 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 T.V. Zehol, with assistance from NJA faculty and judicial officers.

Language Shapes Justice

The report stresses that judicial language is not merely a matter of style but is central to ensuring fairness, dignity and impartiality in adjudication.

"Sensitive judicial language is therefore not merely a matter of politeness; it is essential to ensuring fairness, dignity, and impartiality in adjudication," the report states, observing that insensitive remarks or stereotypical reasoning may discourage victims from reporting offences and participating in the justice process.

The report adds that courts, as constitutional institutions, must use language that is respectful, neutral and free from stereotypes.

Avoid "Outraging Modesty", "Prosecutrix", "Lust"

After examining 125 trial court judgments from across the country, the committee prepared an extensive glossary identifying problematic expressions commonly found in judicial orders and suggesting modern, legally appropriate alternatives.

Among the principal recommendations are:

Replace "outraging modesty" with "sexual assault" or "violation of bodily autonomy."

Replace "prosecutrix" with "victim", "survivor" or "complainant."

Avoid describing offences as acts driven by "lust", and instead refer to them as "sexual violence" or "sexual assault."

Replace "lost her chastity" with "the survivor's bodily autonomy was violated."

Avoid expressions such as "helpless female", "helpless woman", "poor helpless minor girl" and simply use "survivor", "victim" or "child victim."

Avoid references to "honour", "shame", "sanctity" or "modesty", and instead focus on dignity, bodily autonomy and constitutional rights.

The report also recommends against using expressions such as "victim of another person's lust", "destroyed her life", "spoiled her childhood", "haunt throughout her life", "woman in a non-permissive society", or speculative observations about "hormonal changes", "temptation" or "psychological neurosis", unless strictly relevant.

It further advises judges to avoid derogatory expressions such as "whore", "concubine", "mistress", "kept" and "fallen woman". It suggests using "partner" instead of "mistress" or "concubine", and "sex worker" in place of "prostitute", "call girl" or "escort", except where statutory terminology requires otherwise.

Victim-Blaming Must Stop

The committee deprecates victim-blaming tendencies, observing that survivors continue to encounter intrusive and stereotypical questions throughout the criminal justice process.

The report notes that women are often asked why they were outside at a particular time, why they wore certain clothes, why they delayed filing complaints or why they were not accompanied by male family members. It also records submissions received from stakeholders highlighting remarks such as "It is a matter of home, what happened so much?", "Compromise and save your family", and comments questioning a complainant's appearance or behaviour. Such remarks, it says, further traumatise survivors and discourage them from pursuing justice.

The report recalls the Supreme Court's decision in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which directed judges to refrain from relying on gender stereotypes while deciding cases. It also cites Joseph Shine, Navtej Singh Johar and other constitutional decisions to emphasise that adjudication must reject patriarchal assumptions about women's behaviour and autonomy.

Nine Principles For Judicial Writing

The report identifies nine broad principles that should guide judges while writing judgments in sexual offence cases. They are :

1. Fact-based references

Judicial reasoning should be based on evidence and not stereotypes, assumptions, or moral perceptions about the victim's conduct or character. Courts should rely on testimony, medical evidence, forensic material, and surrounding circumstances.

 2. Caution with terms like “outraging modesty”

Though the expression forms part of the statutory framework, it should be used cautiously as it may reflect morality-based or patriarchal notions. The focus should remain on dignity, bodily autonomy, and violation of personal integrity.

 3. Trauma-informed language may be used; no resistance is not equal to consent

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 behavior.

4. Gender-neutral, survivor-centric terms

 Language should dignified and inclusive and avoid reinforcing gender stereotypes. Survivor-centric terminology recognizes the experiences of all affected persons.

5. “Child” or “minor” for victims under 18

Under the POCSO Act, every person below 18 years is legally recognized as a child. Child-sensitive terminology reinforces the protective framework of the law.

6. “Victim” or “survivor,” not “prosecutrix”

The term “prosecutrix” is procedural and impersonal. Expressions such as “victim” or “survivor” are more sensitive and dignity- oriented.

 7. Language ought to be child-sensitive

Judicial language must refrain from sensationalism, moralistic observations, or stigmatizing expressions, particularly in matters involving children.

8. Focus should be on autonomy, consent, and child rights

Judicial reasoning ought to prioritize bodily autonomy, informed consent, dignity, and the best interests of the child rather than notions of morality or honor.

9. Recognize psychological and physical trauma

Sexual offences may result in enduring emotional and psychological trauma apart from physical harm. Courts must adopt a trauma- informed approach while assessing evidence and evaluating the conduct of the victim. In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa45 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized rape as a violation of dignity and human rights.

The committee also specifically advises judges to avoid all forms of victim-blaming, refrain from making assumptions based on clothing or lifestyle, avoid comments about a complainant's sexual history, and use legally precise expressions instead of moralistic or sensational language.

Compassionate Court Practices

Click here to read the report