What happened: Bombay High Court points to “noticeable silence” and misuse of sexual-history evidence

A Bombay High Court ruling reversed the acquittal of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal. The High Court criticised the trial court for effectively maintaining “noticeable silence” while allowing graphic references to a complainant’s past sexual history, which the High Court said were used to undermine the complainant’s credibility.

Background and earlier position: earlier evidence law allowed credibility attacks using sexual history

Legal experts say questioning a rape survivor’s sexual past continues in rape trials despite statutory and judicial restraints. They link this to an earlier Evidence Act framework: prior to its repeal in 2003, Evidence Act Section 155(4) permitted the defence to attack a survivor’s credibility by portraying the survivor as having a “generally immoral character” or by implying consent through the survivor’s past sexual experience.

What changed now: Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 added explicit barriers

After evidence-law reforms, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 inserted clearer limits on using a victim’s prior sexual history. Experts explain that the reforms include a proviso that restricts cross-examination questions about a victim’s general “immoral character” or “previous sexual experience” when the purpose is to prove consent or to assess the quality of consent, framed as a fair trial requirement connected to Article 21 (fair procedure as part of personal liberty). Experts also note a practical limitation: defence counsel may try to bypass the bar by rephrasing questions indirectly through allusions to the survivor’s character.

Related current affairs