SC flags insensitive language used in 3 high court orders

The Supreme Court issued notices to the accused in cases decided by the Allahabad, Jharkhand and Calcutta high courts. It questioned language that appeared to blame victims, minimise sexual conduct or set an unusually narrow threshold for attempted rape. The bench said the Allahabad wording was “very shocking.”

The action followed an application by senior advocate Shobha Gupta on behalf of “We The Women of India.” The application cited three orders, including an Allahabad remark that a victim had “invited trouble” and was responsible for it. It also cited rulings from Jharkhand and Calcutta involving alleged attempts to rape and sexual assault.

The Court had already directed the National Judicial Academy to prepare a handbook and develop a curriculum for sensitising judges. It also issued notices to the accused in the three cases, just as it had done after taking suo motu cognisance of the Patna judgment. Gupta asked the Court to set aside or declare the remarks erroneous.

When the Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance, it starts examining a matter on its own initiative. It does not need to wait for an affected person, organisation or government body to file an ordinary petition first. The phrase signals that the Court considers the issue serious enough to warrant its intervention.

In this matter, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a Patna high court judgment. That judgment said pressing a woman’s chest and removing her salwar did not amount to an attempt to rape. The Supreme Court issued notice to the accused and indicated that the judgment required setting aside.

The Court then considered similar concerns involving Allahabad, Jharkhand and Calcutta high court orders. It issued notices to the accused in those three cases too. The action shows that the Court was examining not only individual outcomes, but also judicial language used in sexual-offence cases.

The Supreme Court objected to language that appeared to shift blame onto victims or minimise alleged sexual violence. The Allahabad high court said that, even accepting the victim’s allegation, she had “invited trouble” and was responsible for it. The Supreme Court called this wording “very shocking.”

The Jharkhand high court ruled for a man who had lain on top of a woman while attempting to rape her, but was stopped when neighbours intervened. It said there was no specific evidence of an attempt to commit sexual intercourse or an act sufficiently proximate to rape. The Calcutta high court similarly said groping a girl’s breasts could support aggravated sexual assault under POCSO, but did not prima facie indicate attempted rape.

The application also criticised expressions such as “preparation to commit rape.” It said such wording can sound insensitive and rude toward victims and society. The Supreme Court stressed that judges at every level need guidance on appropriate language in sexual-offence cases.

The National Crime Records Bureau recorded 441,534 cases of crime against women across India in its 2024 report. The figure represents cases registered during that year. It provides the scale cited in the court proceedings, placing the debate over judicial language within a much larger national context.

The application calculated that this total works out to approximately one registered crime against a woman every 71 seconds. That calculation is an average, not a claim that cases occurred at a perfectly even rate. The article uses it to underline the seriousness and frequency of crimes against women.

The figure was presented alongside concerns about victim confidence in the justice system. The application argued that insensitive observations can create a trust deficit among victims approaching courts. It asked the Supreme Court to set aside such remarks or declare them erroneous, while the Court pursued notices and judicial sensitisation measures.

In general criminal-law terms, preparation means arranging or planning for rape, without yet beginning the immediate execution of the offence. Examples could include gathering means or positioning oneself, but preparation alone is usually distinct from an attempt. The precise legal consequences depend on the applicable law.

An attempt begins when conduct moves beyond preparation and becomes a direct, sufficiently proximate step toward committing rape, even if the offence is interrupted or fails. The article highlights this boundary through the Jharkhand order, which found no act sufficiently proximate to rape, and the Calcutta order, which treated alleged groping as aggravated sexual assault rather than attempted rape.

Completed rape means the legally required elements of that offence have been fulfilled. The article does not set out those elements or a complete legal test. It focuses instead on judicial language and classification, including criticism of the phrase “preparation to commit rape” when used in sexual-offence judgments.

The language of a judgment can shape whether victims feel recognised and respected by the justice system. When judges appear to blame a victim or minimise alleged sexual conduct, victims may fear that approaching court will expose them to further doubt or humiliation. The application described this effect as a “trust deficit.”

The Allahabad order provided the clearest example. It said the victim had “invited trouble” and was responsible for it, even while discussing her allegation. The application also criticised phrases such as “preparation to commit rape,” calling them insensitive and rude toward victims and society. These remarks can overshadow the legal outcome and influence public confidence.

The concern is especially significant against the NCRB’s 2024 figure of 441,534 registered crimes against women. The application asked the Supreme Court to set aside or declare such observations erroneous. The Court also stressed judicial sensitisation and supported a National Judicial Academy handbook and curriculum on appropriate language.

A court judgment does more than resolve the dispute before it. Its words explain how the justice system understands harm, evidence and victims. Because judgments are read beyond the parties, insensitive wording can affect confidence in courts and shape how society views sexual offences. The Supreme Court therefore treated language as a judicial responsibility.

The article gives several examples. Allahabad’s order said the victim had “invited trouble.” Jharkhand’s order said conduct was not sufficiently proximate to rape. Calcutta’s order said alleged breast-groping could support aggravated sexual assault but not prima facie attempted rape. The Supreme Court objected to the tone and classifications in these orders.

The wider response includes notices to the accused and a judicial education effort. The Court said judges at all levels need sensitisation. The National Judicial Academy prepared a handbook in July and is developing a curriculum. The aim is to reduce insensitive language and protect trust in the courts.