The Supreme Court has directed all High Courts to upload the National Judicial Academy’s report on judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases and asked courts and police to follow the handbook while dealing with such cases.
The direction came during the hearing of the suo motu case initiated over the Allahabad High Court’s March 17, 2025 order, which had held that pulling a girl’s pyjama string and grabbing her breasts did not amount to an attempt to rape. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed that order and initiated proceedings to examine broader concerns regarding judicial sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences.
A Bench led by the CJI Surya Kant observed that all courts should follow the language and principles contained in the judicial handbook prepared by the National Judicial Academy Committee. “It is directed that all courts shall follow the expression contained in the handbook. States shall issue instructions to all police stations to follow the handbook while registering FIRs and filing chargesheets. We will upload a reasoned judgment also,” the Bench said.
During the hearing, senior advocate Shobha Gupta informed the court that similar judicial observations continued to emerge, referring to a recent Patna High Court judgment delivered on July 9.
The Patna High Court had held that removing a woman’s salwar and pressing her chest did not amount to an attempt to rape but constituted the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice V. Mohana asked whether the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment directing judicial sensitisation in the Allahabad High Court matter had been cited before the Patna High Court.
Responding to the submission, CJI Surya Kant remarked that judges also have a responsibility to undertake legal research. “There is a duty cast on judges also to do some research. The staff is doing nothing,” the Chief Justice observed.
The Patna High Court delivered its ruling while allowing an appeal filed by a man convicted for attempt to rape in connection with a 2008 case.
According to the prosecution, the accused, who owned a photography studio, allegedly confined a woman inside the studio after asking her father to wait outside. The woman alleged that he bolted the door, attempted to remove her salwar and pressed her chest before fleeing when her father rushed to the room after hearing her cries.
A trial court had convicted the accused for attempt to rape and wrongful confinement. However, after examining the evidence, the High Court found that there was no medical evidence supporting the allegation of attempted rape. It also noted that the investigating officer had not been examined during the trial and that the prosecution primarily relied on the testimonies of the survivor and her parents.
The High Court held that the evidence did not establish the legal ingredients required to prove the offence of attempt to rape. It observed that, even if the prosecution’s version was accepted in full, the allegations clearly constituted the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty by using criminal force and attempting to remove her clothing.
With its latest directions, the Supreme Court has sought wider dissemination of the judicial handbook on sexual offence cases and instructed both courts and police authorities to follow its principles while dealing with such matters.