The Supreme Court on Monday raised concerns over insensitive remarks made by courts in sexual assault cases, observing that such statements can have a “chilling effect” on victims, their families, and society at large. The top court indicated that it may consider issuing comprehensive guidelines to high courts and trial courts on how to frame observations and pass orders in cases involving sexual violence.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing suo motu proceedings initiated after the Supreme Court took note of controversial remarks in an order by the Allahabad High Court dated March 17. Lawyers appearing before the bench informed the court that similar oral and written observations had recently been made by several high courts in sexual assault cases, reflecting a troubling pattern.

Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for an intervenor, referred to the Allahabad High Court’s remarks in a previous case, where the court had suggested that the fact that an incident occurred at night amounted to an “invitation” to the accused. She also cited comparable remarks from the Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts, highlighting the recurring nature of insensitive judicial comments.

Another lawyer drew attention to a fresh incident in a trial court that very morning. Despite an in-camera proceeding meant to protect the privacy of the survivor, multiple people were allegedly present in the courtroom, and the survivor was reportedly subjected to harassment.

Chief Justice Kant emphasized the gravity of such remarks, stating, “Any observations of this nature can have a chilling effect on victims, their families, and society at large. At times, such modalities are also adopted to make victims withdraw complaints.” He noted that while high courts’ remarks are already on record, similar observations at the trial court level may be going unnoticed, making it necessary to consider comprehensive directions.

The bench asked the lawyers to submit brief written suggestions before the next hearing date to aid in framing potential guidelines.

The current proceedings stem from the March 17 order of the Allahabad High Court. In that case, the high court had held that acts such as “mere” grabbing of the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the drawstring of her pyjama, and attempting to pull down her lower garment were insufficient to infer an attempt to commit rape. The Supreme Court noted that it would set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order and allow the trial to proceed.

The apex court observed that the high court had overturned the trial court’s framing of charges under harsher provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had instead directed framing of charges under Section 354B, which pertains to assaulting or using criminal force on a woman with the intent to disrobe her. Section 354B carries a punishment of three to seven years of imprisonment along with a fine.

To ensure that the survivor was not prejudiced, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the high court order. It directed that if the trial court issues summons, the accused must be summoned under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, without being influenced by the conclusions of the high court. The bench clarified that these directions regarding the trial proceedings should not be construed as an indication of the guilt of the accused.

Senior advocate H.S. Phoolka, appearing for one of the petitioners, pointed out that the accused had been regularly attending trial court proceedings and were aware of the matter pending before the Supreme Court. The bench instructed the local SHO to formally communicate the court’s directions to the accused and granted them the option to join proceedings on the next date, making it clear that the case would not be adjourned for service issues in the future.

The case involves an incident in which three men allegedly stopped a woman and her 14-year-old daughter. The accused are said to have grabbed the minor’s breasts, pulled the drawstring of her lower garment, and attempted to drag her under a culvert. The Allahabad High Court’s impugned order concluded that these acts were “not sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons were determined to commit rape” and suggested that charges of a lesser offence should be considered instead.

The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the case following a letter to the Chief Justice of India by the collective “We the Women of India,” which raised concerns about the high court’s handling of the matter. In an earlier hearing on March 26, a bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai described the Allahabad High Court’s observations as “totally unknown to the canons of law” and reflective of an “inhuman approach.”

The top court’s intervention highlights a larger issue regarding judicial sensitivity in sexual assault cases. Legal experts and activists have long argued that insensitive remarks, whether at the level of high courts or trial courts, can intimidate victims and discourage them from pursuing justice. The Supreme Court’s proposal to frame comprehensive guidelines is aimed at ensuring that courts handle sexual assault matters with the gravity, discretion, and sensitivity they deserve.

Such guidelines, if issued, could standardize the approach of courts across India, ensuring that survivors are treated with dignity and that proceedings do not inadvertently cause further trauma. By taking suo motu cognisance, the Supreme Court has sent a strong signal about its commitment to protecting victims’ rights and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process in cases of sexual violence.

As the nation awaits the next hearing, the legal community and civil society will be closely watching the Supreme Court’s response. The case underscores the critical need for judicial awareness and the potential consequences of remarks that may trivialize sexual assault. The apex court’s intervention could pave the way for reforms that balance the rights of the accused with the imperative of safeguarding survivors, setting a benchmark for courts across the country.