When Justice Becomes Trauma: Examining Secondary Victimisation of Women inIndia’s Criminal Justice System

Abstract

The present paper will look at the phenomenon of secondary victimisation or ‘second assault’ as it is commonly called and its effect on women survivors of sexual violence and other gender based crimes in India where they suffer further trauma as a consequence of the interaction with the criminal justice system. Secondary victimisation happens when institutional reactions are insensitive to the initial trauma, exacerbate it through inappropriate law enforcement, medical evaluations, courtroom settings, and stereotyped judgments. This study explores how the procedural arrangements that aim to secure justice can often re-traumatise women from across the reference of significant Indian case law, legal provisions (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and the consequences it has for victims. The paper also looks at the intersectional aspects of this, and how caste, class and socio-economic status aggravate the situation of the marginalised women in the justice system. This study identifies systemic issues at the police, court and judicial levels that deter women from reporting crime and seeking justice through a critical examination of the practice of police investigation, court process, and judicial attitudes. The paper ends with specific recommendations for far-reaching changes such as compulsory gender sensitisation training for judicial officers, trauma-informed investigation practices and the development of robust victim-support systems, both at the beginning and the end of every step of the criminal justice process.

Keywords: Secondary victimisation, women, criminal justice system, India, gender-based violence, re-traumatisation, judicial stereotyping

1. Introduction

Secondary victimisation is one of the biggest paradoxes of criminal justice systems around the globe: while systems designed to safeguard victims, and to bring justice, often cause further victimisation. Secondary victimisation has been described as “harm done to the victims by insensitive institutional reactions to the violence,” which adds to the initial trauma of the victims. This phenomenon is especially significant in the Indian context because of the strong patriarchal norms, casted discrimination, and structural inequalities, embedded in the criminal justice system. The Indian criminal justice system has seen major changes in the legislation, especially since the Nirbhaya gang-rape case of 2012. The ‘Nirbhaya Act’ or the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 brought comprehensive changes to tackle sexual assaults against women. The subsequent amendments in 2018 and the changes of the Indian Penal Code by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 have further highlighted the Government’s intention to make the justice system more victim-centred. This won’t prevent secondary victimisation unless the attitudes and practices of culture and institutions are challenged. It has been repeatedly found that the entire criminal justice process treats women badly in India. Research shows that women’s complaints are more likely to be delayed; that they are less likely to be treated seriously; and that complainants who are female have lower conviction rates than complainants who are male. This “multi-stage discrimination” is not only a product of inefficiency in the justice system, but also of failures of attitudes. This paper seeks to critically analyse the various forms, causes and impacts of secondary victimisation of women in the Indian criminal justice system. It explores the dynamic interplay between the statute, judicial attitudes, and institutional practices that together create circumstances in which the pursuit of justice is a test of endurance and not empowerment.

2. Understanding Secondary Victimisation: Conceptual Framework

2.1 Defining Secondary Victimisation

Secondary victimisation, also known as the “second assault” or “post-crime exploitation” is a term used to refer to harm that survivors of sexual violence may endure as a result of the violence they have endured as

well as the way the institutions respond when they seek help. Reaching police, getting medical exams, and going to court often is another roller coaster of pain, fear, and humiliation for many survivors. Frequently survivors lose dignity and control from insensitive questions, repeated recounting of traumatic events, delays and lack of credibility or rigid procedures. In contrast to primary victimisation, which is enacted by the offender, secondary victimisation is institutional victimisation – it is imposed upon the victim by systems and processes designed to provide protection, justice and care. It includes different types of abuse, indifference or neglect that may be suffered by victims of crime by government bodies.

2.2 The Indian Context

The concept of victim rights had not much significance in the Indian criminal justice system until recently. Till recently victims have been treated as prosecution witnesses in the Indian criminal justice system. The Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 2008, only introduced the word “victim” in Section 2(wa). This is late recognition of a system that often values the rights of the accused over the victims, resulting in unequal practices that often leave victims feeling as if their rights to justice are neglected and weakening the victim’s rights. In the wake of the Nirbhaya Case, the J S Verma Committee Report had also proved this problem. The committee suggested provision of the “Survivor Support Services” including lack of secondary victimisation by the criminal justice system and society[1]. The report said “sexual violence must have a legislative right to state funded support services in order to obtain justice, to facilitate physical, mental and emotional recovery” and “to avoid secondary victimization by the criminal justice system and society.[2]

3. Manifestations of Secondary Victimisation in India

3.1 Police Investigation: The First Point of Contact

The police station is the first institution that victims must interact with in their pursuit of justice and is often where they experience ‘secondary victimisation’ for the first time. When women complain of sexual victimisation, domestic violence and dowry crimes, they are often met with dismissing attitude, the mindset of blaming the victims, and bureaucratic apathy. The police may question the character of the victim, the victim’s clothing, the victim’s actions, and they may also comment on the victim’s character, clothing, or actions in a way that implies that the victim was involved in the crime. It is clear that the mandatory registration of First Information Reports (FIR) under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure has not stopped the practice of discouraging women from filing FIRs. Police have been known to engage in informal mediation of domestic violence or sexual harassment offenses, as studies have shown, and over time may be successful at convincing victims to drop complaints. This approach is not only damaging to women’s legal rights to justice, but it is all the more harmful towards the idea of women’s issues as public wrongs that should be addressed through the legal system. The Mathura rape case of 1972 is a classic example of secondary victimisation as a result of police complicity. The initial acquittal by the Supreme Court of Mathura, a young tribewoman, who was raped by two police constables inside a Police Station, vividly illustrates how the Supreme Court failed to appreciate the dynamics of power and consent in a police custody situation, as it had ruled that since she failed to complain and there was no sign of injury marks, the sexual intercourse was a “peaceful affair”.[3]

3.2 Medical Examination: Invasion of Privacy and Dignity

Sexual assault survivors’ medical examination is one of the most intrusive and traumatic components of the justice process. Although the “two-finger test” (or per vaginum examination) has been repeatedly condemned by courts, it is still performed in some places. This archaic process has no scientific basis to determine consent, re-traumatises survivors, and functions as an affront to their dignity. In State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh[4], the Supreme Court stressed the importance of conducting medical examinations of survivors in a sensitive manner, warning that insensitivity leads to secondary trauma affecting their psychological well-being. Reaffirming this stance and explicitly banning the practice, the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v Shailendra Kumar Rai[5] observed that the two-finger test is patriarchal and sexist, reiterating that a woman’s sexual history is irrelevant to the question of consent. Nevertheless, there remains a lack of consistency in implementing trauma-informed medical procedures, especially in rural areas where trained forensic personnel are scarce.

3.3 Courtroom Dynamics: Hostility and Humiliation

The atmosphere in the courtroom can be even more traumatic for victims, since it will be offensive and intimidating. One thing that is historically associated with cross-examination of sexual violence is the aggressive questioning in order to discredit the victim’s evidence. Common defence tactics include questioning the credibility of the complainant, their sexual history and personal conduct. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)[6], the landmark case, the Commission outlined certain guidelines for stopping sexual harassment in the workplace, including the fact that the second time someone is victimized is through hostile cross-examination. The Supreme Court said that sexual harassment is a violation of the right to gender equality and hostile environments in institutional environments are a infringement on the fundamental rights.

4. Landmark Case Law

4.1 Mathura Case ( Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, 1979) A protest by Mathura was sparked by her custodial rape by two police constables in 1972 and the acquittal of the two by the Supreme Court, which helped in launching the first major reform of the rape laws in the country. Judges’ lack of understanding of power issues in a custody environment was evident in their unwillingness to consider passive consent because of fear as a form of consent entirely distinct from one given voluntarily.

4.2 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) The Supreme Court had made a ground-breaking judgment which had declared sexual harassment in the workplace a violation of the fundamental rights. The court developed guidelines stating that women do not have the right to equality and to live off of their work when they are in an environment where there are adverse situations as women.

4.3 Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill (1996)[7] This case showed that even women in superior roles are easy targets for sexual harassment and inequalities are both entrenched and tend to get in the way of justice. By acknowledging unwanted touching as “outraging modesty”, the Supreme Court has broadened the definition of sexual crimes, moving beyond physical violence.

5. Intersectional Dimensions

The phenomenon of secondary victimisation in India cannot be analysed without taking into account the axes of caste, class and religion. The justice system is a place where Dalit and Adivasi women, among women from marginalised communities, are disadvantaged. Rural police responses can be affected by the caste power structure in India, as offenses committed by upper caste victims against lower caste victims are not investigated, let alone prosecuted. Studies have shown that caste, class and other socio-economic considerations exacerbate discrimination, making marginalised women more vulnerable to negative consequences of discrimination and to lack of legal support. Gender and caste issues create specific vulnerabilities that make individuals more susceptible to victimisation and the justice system does not reach. Gender and caste issues create unique vulnerabilities that make individuals more susceptible to being a victim of victimisation and the justice system does not reach.

6. Recommendations

Based on the analysis that is presented in this paper, the following reforms are recommended:

1. Gender Sensitisation Training: Mandatory for all judicial officers, police officers and doctors dealing with cases of gender-based violence to undergo extensive, continuous training in trauma-informed practices.
2. Victim Support Mechanisms: There should be strong support mechanisms, such as legal aid, psychological counselling, and financial support, at all levels of the criminal justice process..
3. Standardised Investigation Protocols: Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) to standardize investigation protocols for gender-based crimes with focus on sensitivity and professionalism.
4. Infrastructure Improvements: Ensure that courts have child friendly infrastructure, with separate waiting areas for vulnerable witnesses to reduce exposure to hostile environments.
5. Accountability Mechanisms: In the event a police officer or judicial officer blames or shows insensitivity towards the victims he or she should be held accountable.

Conclusion

The secondary victimization of women has become a seriously entrenched issue in India’s criminal justice system that cannot be effectively resolved through legislative reform alone. Though much has been achieved since the passage of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act in 2013 and a watershed judgement, the distance between the law and its implementation remains significant. This is facilitated by continued patriarchal prejudices, caste discrimination, and institutional negligence, which result in women pursuing justice undergoing “secondary victimization” at the hands of the institutions that were meant to protect them.

In order to reduce secondary victimization, it is necessary to change the institutional ethos by shifting from procedural reform to a victim-oriented approach to justice delivery. This shift involves sustained political will, appropriate training programs, and an understanding that delayed justice, denied justice, and badly delivered justice are all kinds of injustice.

Reference(S):

1. PRS Legislative Research, ‘Justice Verma Committee Report Summary’ (PRS Legislative Research, 2013) https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/justice-verma-committee-report-summary accessed 2 September 2026.
2. Aswathy T, ‘Secondary Victimisation in the Justice System’ (Lawful Legal, 31 August 2024) https://lawfullegal.in/secondary-victimisation-in-the-justice-system/ accessed 2 September 2026.
3. Tukaram v State of Maharashtra (15 September 1978) Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114584494/ accessed 2 September 2026.
4. State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384.
5. State of Jharkhand v Shailendra Kumar Rai 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890.
6. Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.
7. Rupan Deol Bajaj v KPS Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194.

[1] PRS Legislative Research, ‘Justice Verma Committee Report Summary’ (PRS Legislative Research, 2013) https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/justice-verma-committee-report-summary accessed 22 July 2026.

[2] Aswathy T, ‘Secondary Victimisation in the Justice System’ (Lawful Legal, 31 August 2024) https://lawfullegal.in/secondary-victimisation-in-the-justice-system/ accessed 2 September 2026.

[3] Tukaram v State of Maharashtra (15 September 1978) Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114584494/ accessed 2 september 2026.

[4] State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384.

[5] State of Jharkhand v Shailendra Kumar Rai 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890.

[6] Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.        

[7] Rupan Deol Bajaj v KPS Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194.