New Delhi, February 17 – The Supreme Court has directed the National Judicial Academy to form a committee of experts to draft guidelines for judges dealing with cases of sexual offenses, emphasizing the need to instill sensitivity in the judicial approach.
The top court, through its Director, Justice (Retired) Aniruddha Bose, has asked the Bhopal-based academy to prepare a comprehensive report on “Developing Guidelines to Inculcate Sensitivity and Compassion into Judges and Judicial Processes in the Context of Sexual Offences and Other Vulnerable Cases.”
In an order passed on February 10, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria stated that various steps have been taken by constitutional courts, but these efforts have not yielded the desired results.
“Given this, we hesitate to undertake a fresh attempt without a comprehensive understanding of past endeavors by different constitutional and statutory bodies, the on-ground results of such efforts, and the varying scope of problems faced by victims and complainants in similar sensitive cases,” the bench said.
The bench further stated that the committee should consider previous measures undertaken by the judicial or administrative sides. “Further, after taking into account such previous endeavors and the variety of on-ground experiences faced by different stakeholders across the judicial system, prepare comprehensive recommendations.”
The bench indicated that the final document should be “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.”
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the committee should be mindful of the linguistic diversity of the country. “There are various offensive words and expressions, the use of which ordinarily constitutes a crime under our penal laws, but they are openly spoken by members of our society in local dialects, ostensibly due to a lack of understanding of their offensive nature.”
The bench stated that the committee should identify and compile such words/expressions from different languages to ensure they are not overlooked, empowering victims and complainants to provide a more complete account of their trauma.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the primary beneficiaries of these guidelines are victims/complainants, primarily children, women of tender age, and vulnerable members of society. “Therefore, the committee must ensure that the draft guidelines are easily understood and utilized by these individuals, regardless of their background or means.”
The bench recommended that the committee, preferably the entire report, and at a minimum the draft guidelines, should be in simple language understandable by laypersons, whose interests the guidelines seek to protect.
The bench further stated that the committee of experts should be at liberty to seek the assistance of other experts, such as linguists, prosecutors, lawyers, social scientists, and counselors, as deemed necessary.
These directions came in the context of a suo motu plea regarding a High Court order stating that merely grabbing a woman's breast and pulling her "pyjama" does not constitute rape.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court order, stating, “Given these facts, we cannot agree with the High Court's finding that the allegations only constitute preparation, not an attempt, to commit rape.”
The bench concluded that the evidence clearly indicates that a case for invoking the provisions of attempt to commit rape has been made out by the complainant and the prosecution, and the High Court's judgment is therefore liable to be overturned due to a flawed application of established criminal law principles.
The bench emphasized that no judge or court judgment should be expected to provide complete justice if it disregards the factual realities of a litigant and their vulnerabilities.
“Our decisions as participants in the legal process, from laying down the procedures that citizens must face to the final judgment 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 bench added.
