The Delhi High Court has ruled that a victim’s prior familiarity with the accused or voluntarily visiting his room cannot justify sexual assault. The judgment reinforces that consent is crucial, and victim-blaming is legally and morally unacceptable.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark decision reaffirming the principles of victim protection and judicial sensitivity, the Delhi High Court has clarified that a woman’s prior familiarity or cordial relationship with an accused cannot be used to hold her responsible for sexual assault.
The Case Background
The matter arose when a woman, an independent journalist and a PhD scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), challenged certain observations made by a trial court while granting bail to the accused in a rape case. The woman had alleged that the man sexually assaulted her on two separate occasions after calling her to his hostel room.
The trial court, while admitting the accused to bail, made several observations that drew criticism:
- It noted that the complainant, being educated, should have been aware of the implications of her actions.
- It emphasized that she voluntarily stayed in the accused’s hostel room and did not explicitly claim she was forced into sexual intercourse.
- The court also commented on her uncertainty regarding a long-distance relationship she was in at the time.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Supreme Court Sends Judicial Officers’ Promotion Issues to Constitution Bench
High Court’s Observations
The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Amit Mahajan, strongly rejected these observations, noting that they cast unwarranted aspersions on the complainant’s character. Key takeaways from the judgment include:
- Voluntary presence is not consent
“Concededly, no person has right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room,”
the Court emphasized.
- Trauma should not be trivialized: Judicial commentary, especially at the bail stage, should not minimize the trauma experienced by the victim.
- The trial stage is for truth assessment: Questions regarding the truthfulness of allegations are to be examined during the trial, not while deciding bail.
While the bail granted to the accused was not revoked, the High Court struck down the trial court’s remarks that unfairly questioned the complainant’s character. This decision serves as a reminder that judicial commentary must remain sensitive to the experiences of survivors and avoid perpetuating victim-blaming narratives.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Warisha Farasat, Suvarna Swain & Kaustubh Chaturvedi
Respondents: Advocates Sunil Kumar Gautam, Geeta Verma & Pawan Kumar
Case Title:
X v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.
CRL.M.C. 378/2025
Read Order: