In News:

The Bombay High Court’s 2026 judgment in the Tarun Tejpal case has renewed debate over the “perfect victim” myth—the societal and institutional expectation that survivors of sexual assault must display a particular form of behaviour to be considered credible.

The idea is closely linked to criminologist Nils Christie’s “Ideal Victim” theory (1986). It explains how society tends to extend greater sympathy to victims who fit conventional stereotypes—such as being vulnerable, respectable and having no prior relationship with the offender. Consequently, victimhood can become a socially constructed and gendered status, with factors such as gender, caste, class, social position and sexual history influencing perceptions of credibility.

In the Tarun Tejpal case, the Bombay High Court overturned the 2021 trial court acquittal and sentenced Tejpal to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Court criticised excessive reliance on the complainant’s post-assault behaviour, including her appearance on CCTV, rather than evaluating the material evidence. The judgment therefore reinforces the principle that there is no single “correct” way for a survivor to respond to sexual violence.

Historical Examples of Victim Stereotyping

• Mathura custodial rape case (1979): Judicial reasoning relied on the absence of injuries/resistance and the survivor’s previous sexual experience while assessing consent. In 2025, former CJI B.R. Gavai described the episode as an institutional embarrassment for the judiciary.
• Bhanwari Devi case (1992): The trial court acquitted the accused based partly on caste-based assumptions that upper-caste men would not sexually assault a Dalit woman. The case became an important catalyst for the Vishakha Guidelines (1997) and subsequently the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
• Jindal Global Law School case (2017): Concerns were raised over judicial reliance on perceptions about the survivor’s sexual behaviour and character.

Gender-Sensitive Judicial Approach

The underlying concern is the “performance of trauma”—expecting survivors to demonstrate fear, resistance, immediate reporting or visible distress. However, trauma responses can vary significantly. The Supreme Court’s 2026 gender-sensitivity guidance for judicial writing cautions against drawing adverse conclusions merely from delayed FIRs, absence of physical injuries or variations in demeanour.