The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of an Allahabad High Court ruling that said grabbing a minor girl’s breasts did not amount to attempted rape. The CJI stressed the need for simple, victim-sensitive language and hinted at comprehensive guidelines for courts dealing with sexual offence cases.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday took up a suo motu case to examine serious concerns arising from a controversial order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl and attempting to pull her under a culvert did not amount to the offence of attempted rape.
The matter has been heard by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
During the hearing, the counsel drew the Court’s attention to specific paragraphs of the High Court judgment that were under scrutiny, stating, ‘
“We are discussing that 21, 23, 24, and 26, four paragraphs of it. And in my matter, I have cited a submission that there is a handbook issued by this court in 2023, even that’s not being followed by it.”
Responding to this, the Chief Justice of India made important observations on the use of language in judicial orders dealing with sexual offences.
The CJI remarked,
“That handbook is also unfortunately too much Harvard-oriented. Dictionary assistance. We need to very simple language. Common man should understand these things. After ultimately, we will come in. Language should be that even the victim’s family can understand.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also addressed the issue of correct legal terminology, pointing out that courts must use language that accurately reflects the nature of the offence. He observed,
“The commonly used expression is penetrative sexual details. The commonly used expression is rape. The handbook prescribes that it use the correct expression.”
The counsel further argued that the Allahabad High Court not only ignored the Supreme Court’s handbook but also used problematic language that shifted blame onto the victim. He submitted,
“The high court has also violated that. It says that she is a responsible for that. Whereas the handbook specifically says this kind of term should not be used. Implication of consent or inferred consent because of lack of resistance has been clearly taken out from the realm of gender violence.”
Taking serious note of these concerns, the Chief Justice emphasised the need for a sensitive and uniform approach in cases involving sexual violence. The CJI stated,
“The sitting should lay down some guidelines for some sensitive approach, some terminology is not to be used in the approach. The proposal first be set aside by the government, allowing the bank to not proceed with the matter. That is what the National Youth League is.”
The hearing also touched upon the legal concept of “attempt” under criminal law. The counsel pointed out the absence of a clear statutory definition, submitting,
“Under the Indian Penal Code, and now under the Nyaya Sanhita of 2025, there is no statutory definition of ‘attempt.’ Section 511 speaks of attempt to commit offences.”
It was also brought to the Court’s notice that the Kerala State Legal Services Authority had filed an intervention application seeking the use of age-appropriate language in judicial decisions concerning minors.
Addressing the larger issue beyond the present case, the Chief Justice made it clear that the Court was keen to bring systemic reform. He said,
“So first we want to close that chapter. But the second part that with regard to the guidelines and the broad principles which we should keep in mind, that definitely we are thinking that I will request the National Judicial Academy first of all. There they can invite in fact some of the experts, the solution and some professors are already there.”
The CJI further explained the purpose of such an exercise, noting,
“Let them prepare a comprehensive report and send to us. Well, because that report will not be with reference to a particular case.”
During the hearing, counsel appearing for Sikkim informed the Bench that most High Courts had failed to act on earlier directions. He submitted that only one High Court had complied. Referring to this, the Chief Justice candidly remarked,
“To be honest, even if we prepare a simplified dictionary. Of words and expressions, even that may not be helpful. Where and in what circumstances, what is the right word to be chosen, with the real challenge.”
Concluding the discussion, the Chief Justice highlighted the complexity involved in framing sensitive judicial language and stressed that a mere booklet would not suffice.
ALSO READ: “Love, Not Lust”: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction After Victim Marries Accused
He observed,
“So you have to have a factual scenario, and then how you explain and what should be the rightful, a decent, respectful expression to explain that scenario. So this will be an exercise which will be, it can’t be a booklet. It has to be, let it be a book running into volumes.”
The Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter signals a significant step towards re-examining how courts describe and assess sexual offences, particularly those involving minors, and underscores the need for clarity, sensitivity, and victim-centric language in judicial reasoning.
Case Title:
In Re the Allahabad HC order dated 17.03.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Rape of Minor
