A victim's past sexual relationships can be used to prove they 'probably' consented this time.

The law explicitly says such evidence is not relevant to deciding consent in the specific case being tried.

This provision protects only rape victims.

It applies to a range of offences including gang rape, custodial sexual abuse, sexual harassment, voyeurism, and stalking, wherever consent is in question.

Defence lawyers can never ask about the victim's conduct at all.

The bar is specifically on character or previous sexual experience evidence used to argue about consent; other relevant facts of the incident can still be examined.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 48

Evidence of character or previous sexual experience not relevant in certain cases

In a prosecution for an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77 or section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is in issue, evidence of the character of the victim or of such person’s previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant on the issue of such consent or the quality of consent.§

Why this exists

Historically, defence lawyers in sexual offence trials often tried to discredit victims by bringing up their sexual history or 'moral character', suggesting a person who was sexually active or had a certain reputation was more likely to have consented or less credible. This practice re-traumatized victims and diverted trials from the real question — whether consent was given on that occasion. Following recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, Parliament introduced similar 'rape shield' protections into the Indian Evidence Act (Section 53A and a proviso to Section 146) through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 carries forward this protection as Section 48.

How courts read it

Even before the 2013 amendment, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) strongly disapproved of trial courts allowing character assassination of rape victims, holding that a woman's sexual history does not make her consent to a specific act more likely and that such cross-examination causes needless humiliation. This reasoning helped shape the later statutory 'rape shield' provisions, and courts have since relied on Section 53A of the old Evidence Act (the predecessor to this Section 48) to block defence attempts to introduce character or past sexual conduct evidence to challenge a victim's credibility or claim of non-consent.

Common misconceptions

Myth: A victim's past sexual relationships can be used to prove they 'probably' consented this time.
Fact: The law explicitly says such evidence is not relevant to deciding consent in the specific case being tried.
Myth: This provision protects only rape victims.
Fact: It applies to a range of offences including gang rape, custodial sexual abuse, sexual harassment, voyeurism, and stalking, wherever consent is in question.
Myth: Defence lawyers can never ask about the victim's conduct at all.
Fact: The bar is specifically on character or previous sexual experience evidence used to argue about consent; other relevant facts of the incident can still be examined.