CJI BR Gavai termed the 1979 Mathura Rape Case verdict a “moment of institutional embarrassment,” admitting the Supreme Court failed its citizens. The case sparked India’s women’s rights movement and led to landmark rape law reforms.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai has described the Supreme Court’s 1979 verdict in the Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra case, widely known as the Mathura rape case, as a “moment of institutional embarrassment.” The verdict, which acquitted two policemen accused of raping a young tribal girl inside a police station, was criticized for its deeply regressive and patriarchal understanding of consent.
Delivering the 30th Justice Sunanda Bhandare Memorial Lecture, CJI Gavai acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s judgment reflected a failure of the legal system to protect the dignity of the victim, noting that the court wrongly interpreted “consent” as voluntary simply because there were no visible signs of resistance.
CJI Gavai called the verdict one of the most troubling moments in India’s constitutional and judicial history, saying:
“It was a moment when the legal system failed to protect the very person it was meant to safeguard. Yet, this judgment also became a turning point.”
The public outrage and nationwide protests that followed, led by women’s groups, students, and legal activists, are widely credited with igniting India’s modern women’s rights movement. The movement ultimately led to crucial amendments in India’s criminal law, redefining the concept of consent and strengthening legal protections against custodial rape.
Speaking on the theme of “The Evolution of Law in Building a Gender Equal and Inclusive India,” CJI Gavai highlighted that civil society vigilance and grassroots activism have played a vital role in shaping India’s journey toward gender justice.
He noted that over the past 75 years, India has witnessed the enactment of several pathbreaking laws aimed at dismantling gender inequalities within families, workplaces, and institutions. Courts, too, have often acted as guardians of equality and human dignity, though not without occasional setbacks.
“The vigilance of civil society, the persistence of women’s movements, and the courage of ordinary citizens have together kept the judiciary accountable to the constitutional promise of equality,”
CJI Gavai remarked.
CJI Gavai emphasized that progress in gender justice is not solely the achievement of the courts but also the collective result of citizens’ voices. He stated that public dialogue, activism, and protest have often led to the correction of regressive judicial precedents through reform, reinterpretation, or legislative intervention.
“The dialogue between the courts and the people remains one of the most vital sources of India’s democratic strength,”
he said, reminding that the march toward gender equality is a continuous commitment rather than a final destination.
Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra (1979) | The ‘Mathura Rape Case’
The Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra (1979), popularly known as the Mathura Rape Case, was a landmark judgment that transformed India’s rape laws. The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit two policemen accused of raping a young tribal girl, Mathura, inside a police station triggered massive public outrage. This case became a turning point in India’s women’s rights movement, leading to key legal reforms through the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1983.
Facts of the Case
Mathura, a teenage tribal girl, was allegedly raped by two policemen, Ganpat and Tukaram, at the Desai Ganj Police Station in Maharashtra in 1972. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, citing lack of evidence and questioning Mathura’s credibility.
The Bombay High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that the intercourse was forcible and that Mathura’s submission resulted from fear. However, in 1979, the Supreme Court again acquitted the policemen, ruling that Mathura’s “consent” was voluntary since there were no visible marks of resistance, a decision that drew intense criticism nationwide.
Legal Issues and Provisions Involved
The case revolved around Sections 354, 375, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), addressing sexual assault and rape. The central question before the court was whether the prosecution had proved lack of consent.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove coercion or fear, placing the entire burden of proof on the victim, a stance seen as regressive and patriarchal.
Public Outrage and Legal Reforms
The verdict sparked nationwide protests led by women’s rights activists, lawyers, and students. Public intellectuals like Upendra Baxi, Vasudha Dhagamwar, Lotika Sarkar, and Raghunath Kelkar condemned the judgment in an open letter to the Chief Justice of India.
Their activism led to major legislative reforms:
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, introduced new sections:
- Sections 376A–376D (IPC): Defined custodial rape and other aggravated forms of sexual assault.
- Section 114A (Indian Evidence Act): Shifted the burden of proof regarding consent from the victim to the accused in rape cases.
- In-camera trials and restrictions on disclosing the identity of rape victims were introduced.
While the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to “lack of proof,” the social and legal impact of the case was historic. The Mathura Rape Case exposed systemic bias against women in sexual assault trials and paved the way for stronger rape laws and greater accountability for custodial crimes.
Click Here To Read More Reports on CJI B.R. Gavai