Supreme Court approves mandatory handbook for sensitive, inclusive handling of sexual-offence and vulnerable-person cases

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of observations made by the Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated 17.03.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024, following a communication from “We the Women of India” dated 20.03.2025.

In earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision to be inconsistent with settled criminal-law principles, set it aside, and remitted the matter to the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj.

The Court also identified a broader need for greater sensitivity, compassion, empathy, and a victim-centric approach in judicial proceedings involving sexual offences and vulnerable persons.

It constituted an expert committee chaired by Justice Aniruddha Bose to prepare guidelines on sensitivity and compassion in judicial decisions and processes.

The Committee submitted a publication addressing gender-sensitive and non-stereotypical language, victim-blaming, secondary trauma, respectful terminology concerning transgender and SOGIESC persons, and compassionate court procedures.

Whether the expert Committee’s publication on sensitivity, compassion, inclusive language, and judicial processes in sexual-offence and other vulnerable-person cases should be accepted and approved as a guiding resource for the judiciary.

Whether directions should be issued for the dissemination, publication, training, and institutional implementation of the publication by courts, tribunals, police authorities, prosecution agencies, judicial academies, and governmental bodies.

Whether the observations made by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 775/2013 warranted registration of a fresh suo motu proceeding.

The Court applied the constitutional and institutional principles that judicial administration must protect the dignity, equality, and rights of victims and vulnerable persons, particularly in cases involving sexual offences.

It held that judicial decisions and court procedures should be informed by sensitivity, compassion, empathy, and a victim-centric approach, while preserving fairness, impartiality, and adjudicatory integrity.

The Court further endorsed the principle that judicial language should be clear, accessible, inclusive, non-stereotypical, and responsive to India’s linguistic and cultural diversity rather than unnecessarily technical or foreign in orientation.

The approved publication was treated as a mandatory guiding resource for relevant judicial, governmental, police, prosecution, and quasi-judicial authorities.

The Court considered the Committee’s publication to be a practical institutional response to the systemic concern identified during the proceedings: that insensitive language, stereotyping, victim-blaming, and procedurally insensitive treatment can cause secondary trauma and undermine access to justice.

Because the publication addressed both substantive judicial discourse and the conduct of proceedings, and was framed in accessible language suited to India’s diverse legal and linguistic contexts, the Court found it suitable for adoption across all levels of the justice system.

The Court therefore approved it as a guiding resource and directed broad dissemination, publication, training, and implementation.

Regarding the Patna High Court judgment, the Court did not itself register a fresh proceeding; instead, it directed the Registry to seek administrative guidance from the Chief Justice of India.

It directed the Registry to upload and circulate the publication to the High Courts, District Judiciary, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies, judicial academies, legal-services authorities, government departments, and other relevant institutions.

Directors General of Police and Directors of Prosecution were directed to implement it and instruct police stations to follow its contents while registering FIRs and filing chargesheets.

Authorities were further encouraged to conduct orientation programmes, training sessions, workshops, and other capacity-building initiatives.

The Court directed administrative consideration of whether a fresh suo motu proceeding was required concerning the Patna High Court judgment and disposed of the matter and pending applications.