A woman’s clothing, past relationships, marital status or social media activity cannot be used to blame her for a sexual offence allegedly committed against her, the Uttar Pradesh Police has directed investigators, citing the need to ensure that survivors are not subjected to further trauma through insensitive and prejudicial language in the criminal justice system.
A delay in lodging an FIR or the absence of injuries must not automatically be used to discredit a survivor’s account, the directive added. The court’s publication, Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, and its related work on gender-sensitive judgments, underscores that language is not merely a matter of courtesy but is essential to ensuring fairness, dignity and justice. A 20-point directive issued by director general of police (DGP) Rajeev Krishna on September 30 bars investigating officers from treating a woman’s previous sexual history as evidence of consent. The directive follows the Supreme Court’s July 14, 2026 directions in a suo motu writ petition concerning the use of sensitive and respectful legal language in cases involving sexual and other sensitive offences.
Because she did not raise an alarm, appeared calm after the incident or had minor inconsistencies in her statement, officers have also been directed not to undermine a survivor’s credibility merely.
Knowing the accused, accompanying the person somewhere, remaining silent or not physically resisting an alleged assault cannot, by themselves, be interpreted as consent, according to the directive. The absence of physical injuries or resistance cannot, by itself, establish consent, the directive said.
The circular reiterates that a child’s consent is not legally recognised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The circular provides examples of inappropriate expressions and recommended alternatives. In cases involving children below 18, officers must avoid descriptions suggesting that a child was willing, provocative, of questionable character or coached into making allegations.
The DGP has directed officers to avoid derogatory or patronising descriptions and use terms such as “survivor”, “victim”, “complainant” or “informant”, as appropriate. References to a woman’s “honour”, “purity” or “chastity” have been discouraged, as have unsupported labels such as “unstable”, “hysterical” or “dramatic”. It also directs officers to describe a person as an “accused” rather than declare them guilty before a court reaches a finding. Chargesheets must reflect what the evidence prima facie establishes without emotionally charged or conclusive language, the circular says.
The police circular specifically notes that stereotypical, derogatory or victim-blaming language can retraumatise survivors and affect their trust in, and participation in, the criminal justice system. the Supreme Court’s directions have been extended to police documentation, including FIRs, case diaries, investigation forms, police reports and chargesheets Although the principles were framed primarily in the context of judicial writing.
