LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 783Decided 14 Jul 2026
Miscellaneous Application No. 1998 of 2026 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1/2025
Justice Joymalya Bagchi · Justice V. Mohana

Background

The Supreme Court had earlier taken suo motu cognizance of certain insensitive observations made by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in a POCSO-related criminal revision, and by an earlier order had already set aside that High Court judgment and remitted the matter to the Special POCSO Court, Kasganj. Building on that episode, the Court decided it was necessary to address a wider, systemic problem: judicial language and conduct in cases involving sexual offences and other vulnerable victims/witnesses often lacked sensitivity and compassion. It therefore asked former Supreme Court Judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, Director of the National Judicial Academy, to chair an expert committee to prepare guidelines on this subject.

Decision Breakdown

The Committee (comprising a former Gujarat High Court Chief Justice, a retired IPS officer, a Supreme Court advocate and an anthropology professor) produced a handbook titled "Developing Guidelines to Inculcate Sensitivity and Compassion into Judges and Judicial Processes in the Context of Sexual Offences and Other Vulnerable Cases." Unlike earlier gender-language guidelines that were criticised as too anglicised, this handbook was deliberately written in plain, regionally sensitive language usable across India's diverse district judiciary. The Court formally approved and adopted the publication as a mandatory guiding resource, directing it be uploaded to the Supreme Court and all High Court websites, circulated to judicial academies, law departments, legal services authorities, police leadership (with instructions to follow it while registering FIRs/chargesheets), and disseminated through training and orientation programmes. The Court clarified this is an evolving exercise, not a final word. It also flagged a possible conflict between a Patna High Court judgment and the Court's earlier order for the Chief Justice's administrative guidance on whether fresh suo motu proceedings are needed.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court has institutionalised a mandatory, plain-language handbook directing judges, police, and prosecutors to use sensitive, non-stereotyping language and victim-centric procedures in sexual-offence and vulnerable-persons cases: a resource citizens and lawyers can point to if a court or police officer's conduct or language falls short of these standards.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case