"Use Simple Language, Avoid Complicated Expressions": Supreme Court Asks NJA To Form Committee To Draft Guidelines On Judicial Sensitivity In Sexual Offence Cases

​The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria observed, “We request the Committee of Experts to prepare a comprehensive report on the matter of ‘Developing Guidelines to Inculcate Sensitivity and Compassion into Judges and Judicial Processes in the Context of Sexual Offences and other Vulnerable Cases’. The Committee shall consider the previous measures undertaken, whether on the judicial side or the administrative side, to achieve such goals, as well as the varying results seen on the ground through the implementation of such measures. Further, after taking into account such previous endeavours and the variety of on-ground experiences faced by different stakeholders across the judicial system, prepare comprehensive recommendations. These recommendations shall be in the form of ‘Draft Guidelines for the Approach of Judges and the Judicial System When Dealing with Cases of Sexual Offences and other Similarly Sensitive Occurrences Involving Vulnerable Victims, Complainants, and/or Witnesses’.

Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, and Senior Additional Advocate General Sharan Dev Singh Thakur appeared for the Parties.

The Committee of Experts shall be presided over by Justice Bose as Chairperson and shall comprise four other domain experts as Members, which may include practitioners, academicians, and social workers.

The instant suo motu writ petition was registered in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, prompted by a letter dated March 20, 2025, received from an organisation named ‘We the Women of India’, through its Founder President, Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta. The Court also heard the Appeals filed assailing the impugned judgment and summoning order passed by the Trial Court.

The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated March 17, 2025, held that merely grabbing the breasts of a minor and pulling the string of her pyjama to “bring down” her lower garment are not sufficient facts, by itself, to establish an intention on the part of the accused to commit rape.

The Court for the Broader Issue Of Guidelines For Inculcating Sensitivity And Compassion Into Judicial Approach, observed, “The judicial system, as a cohesive framework, is designed to deliver justice and satisfaction to citizens who seek redressal of their grievances before it. To meet such an objective, our efforts must not only be grounded in the sound application of constitutional and legal principles but also foster an environment of compassion and empathy. The absence of either of these cornerstones would prevent judicial institutions from properly performing their critical duties.”

Senior Counsels appearing in the matter requested the Court to take cognizance of the insensitivity reflected in the impugned judgment towards the plight of the minor girl, who is alleged to have been the victim of sexual offences. They submitted that there have been various instances of impassive judicial decisions, across different levels of the judiciary, where judges and judicial officers have failed to imbibe compassion and empathy in the manner of handling matters involving sexual offences, especially when it comes to vulnerable and/or minor victims and witnesses.

“No judge or judgment of any court can be expected to do complete justice when it is inconsiderate towards the factual realities of a litigant and the vulnerabilities which they may be facing in approaching a court of law. Our decisions as participants in the legal process, from laying down the procedure that shall have to be faced by common citizens to the final judgment passed in any given case, must reflect the ethos of compassion, humanity, and understanding, which are essential for creating a fair and effective justice system”, the Court observed.

The Court directed that the Committee, while preparing the report, must bear in mind the linguistic diversity of the nation. It said that there are various examples of offensive words and expressions, the use of which would ordinarily constitute an offence under our penal laws, but they are openly spoken by members of our society in local dialects, ostensibly because of the absence of a clear understanding of the offensive nature of such sayings.

It was observed, “While doing so, the Committee of Experts must remind itself that the primary beneficiaries of these Guidelines are the victims/complainants, majority of whom are children, women of tender age, and members of vulnerable sections of society. As such, the Committee shall ensure that the Draft Guidelines are devised in a manner so that they may be understood and utilized easily by such persons, irrespective of their background and means.”

The Court also recommended Committee to consider preparing translated versions of certain public-facing sections of the guidelines. The objective is to fully explain the various concepts to all readers, irrespective of linguistic and legal proficiency.

“We may also clarify that we, in no way, seek to restrict the Committee of Experts on the aspect of the volume of the draft guidelines. When an attempt is being made to explain and clarify the different concepts, rights, procedures, and best practices to be followed, the Committee must ensure that the report is comprehensive and exhaustive, including appropriate and adequate explanations and illustrations wherever necessary”, the Court said.

Previously, on December 8, 2025, the Court observed that the disturbing judicial observations made in sexual harassment and assault cases by the High Courts may have a chilling effect on the victim, and certain guidelines may be issued to curb these comments.

The Bench had also directed the SHO to formally communicate the details of the next hearing to the concerned parties. The court explicitly clarified that this matter will not be postponed again for reasons related to confirming service or notification, thereby setting a firm deadline for the proceedings to move forward.

The Supreme Court had stayed controversial observations made by the Allahabad High Court, which had ruled that acts of grabbing a child victim's breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert do not constitute the offence of rape or attempt to rape. The Apex Court found the High Court's Order totally insensitive and termed it an "inhumane approach."

Previously, on April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter over the Allahabad High Court’s controversial observations, listing it after four weeks as service is awaited. While adjourning the matter, the bench remarked, "There is now another order passed by another judge from the same High Court…". The Bench added, "Grant bail if they have to, but what are these observations that 'she invited trouble for herself'… and all that?"

Cause Title: In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 165]

Appearances:

Parties: Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, Advocate on Record Prashant Padmanabhan, Advocate on Record Shashi, Advocate Bhuwan Ribhu, Advocate Rachna Tyagi, Advocate Saksham Maheshwari, Advocate Surabhi Katyal, Advocate Surpreet Kaur, Advocate Amar Lal.

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, Senior Additional Advocate General Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Advocate on Record Ruchira Goel, Advocate on Record Aditya Ranjan, Advocate on Record Rahul Gupta, Advocate Sharanya, Advocate Ritika Rao, Advocate Ayushi Srivastava, Advocate Yogmaya MG, Advocate Komal Saini, Advocate Siny Sara Varghese, Advocate Rohin Bhatt, Advocate Pritam Singh, Advocate Umesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate Parvathi Menon, Advocate Sangeeth Mohan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment