The Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to trial courts across the country to hold in camera procedures in all sexual harassment cases and said during cross examination inappropriate questions, especially on sexual history of the aggrieved woman, should not be allowed.
Issuing a series of directions to trial courts, Justices DY Chandrachud and JB Pardiwala noted that legal proceedings tend to be more onerous for complainants of sexual assault as they were dealing with trauma and societal shame.
The bench said trial courts have an important responsibility to handle such cases appropriately.
The apex court passed the order in a case filed a Yoga instructor accusing a Vice Chancellor of sexual abuse and termination of her job for not favouring him. She challenged the trial procedures and witness examinations in the trial court and after approaching in the Bombay High Court.
Allowing her petition, the apex court said proceedings should be conducted in camera while the victim or witness testifying their experience.
“Allowing installation of a screen to ensure that the aggrieved woman does not have to see the accused while testifying or in the alternative, directing the accused to leave the room while the aggrieved woman’s testimony is being recorded,” said the bench in the directions.
The apex court also said during cross examination, the trial court must not allow inappropriate questions, especially on sexual history of the aggrieved woman.
The trial judges must ensure respectful fashion by the advocates of the accused while cross examination and as far as possible cross examination must end in one sitting, said the Supreme Court, adding that the judicial officers must ensure that proceedings must be “onerous for complainants who are potentially dealing with trauma and societal shame due to the unwarranted stigma”.
“In cases alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault or any similar allegation wherein the victim has possibly already been traumatised, the courts should not further burden the complainant and should press upon the police to investigate. Due regard must be had to the fact that it is not possible for the complainant to retrieve important evidence regarding her complaint,” said the order, directing the magistrate to order police to probe further.