SC flags 'chilling effect' of insensitive judicial remarks in sexual assault cases

New Delhi: Observing that insensitive judicial remarks in sexual assault cases can have a “chilling effect” on victims, their families, and society, the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday indicated it may issue comprehensive guidelines for high courts and trial courts on how to make observations and issue orders in such cases.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard lawyers during suo motu proceedings initiated after the SC took cognisance of a March 17 order by the Allahabad High Court. Lawyers highlighted that several high courts, including those in Calcutta and Rajasthan, have recently made similar remarks, some suggesting victim behaviour contributed to the crime.

Senior advocate Shobha Gupta noted that the Allahabad High Court had remarked that an incident occurring at night was an “invitation” to the accused. Another lawyer cited a trial court incident earlier on Monday where, despite in-camera proceedings, multiple people were present, and the survivor was allegedly harassed.

The Chief Justice emphasised that such remarks could discourage victims from filing complaints or cooperating with investigations. “These observations can have a chilling effect on victims, their families and society at large… At times, such modalities are also adopted to make them withdraw complaints,” he said.

The SC will consider issuing guidelines to ensure trial courts avoid insensitive comments. Lawyers have been asked to submit brief written suggestions ahead of the next hearing.

The case in question involved three men who allegedly attacked a woman and her 14-year-old daughter, attempting to disrobe the minor and grab her forcibly. The Allahabad High Court had concluded that these actions were insufficient to infer an intent to commit rape and suggested lesser charges under Section 354B of the IPC, which pertains to assault with intent to disrobe and carries a three- to seven-year prison term.

The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the high court’s order, directing the trial court to summon the accused under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC and under POCSO without being influenced by the high court’s conclusions. The bench clarified that these directions did not indicate guilt.

Senior advocate H S Phoolka informed the court that the accused had been attending trial proceedings and were aware of the matter. The SC directed the concerned SHO to inform the accused and stated that proceedings would not be adjourned for service issues in future hearings.

The SC had earlier taken suo motu cognisance of the matter following a letter from the collective “We the Women of India,” and in a previous hearing had called the Allahabad High Court’s observations “totally unknown to the canons of law” and reflective of an “inhuman approach.”

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny highlights growing concerns over judicial sensitivity in sexual assault cases. Insensitive remarks by courts can not only impact victims’ willingness to report crimes but also undermine public confidence in the judicial process. The proposed guidelines aim to provide clear instructions to trial and high courts on maintaining victim dignity, avoiding prejudicial statements, and ensuring fair proceedings under IPC and POCSO provisions. The move is part of broader efforts to strengthen victim protection mechanisms and uphold the principles of justice, accountability, and sensitivity in India’s legal system.