Today, On 26th March, The Supreme Court has put a stay on the Allahabad High Court’s remark that touching a minor’s breasts does not amount to an attempt to rape. The top court expressed deep disappointment over the lack of sensitivity in the High Court’s ruling. It emphasized that such judgments can set a dangerous precedent and weaken child protection laws. The stay ensures that the case is reviewed with the seriousness it deserves, keeping the rights of minors safeguarded.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a stay on a controversial order from the Allahabad High Court, which had determined that actions such as groping a child victim, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her under a culvert do not constitute rape or an attempt to rape [In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues].
The stay was granted by a Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih in a suo motu case initiated after the judgment was highlighted by the organization “We the Women of India.”
The apex court criticized the High Court’s ruling, stating it reflected a lack of sensitivity on the part of the presiding judge.
The Court ordered,
“We regret to say that it demonstrates a total lack of sensitivity from the author of the judgment. This decision was not made impulsively; it was delivered four months after the judgment was reserved, indicating a deliberate application of mind. While we are usually reluctant to grant stays at this stage, the observations in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 are contrary to legal principles and display an inhuman approach. Therefore, we stay the observations in those paragraphs,”
Additionally, the Court requested responses from both the Central government and the Uttar Pradesh government regarding the matter, and sought assistance from Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
The Court directed,
“We issue notice to the Union, the state of Uttar Pradesh, and the parties involved in the High Court case. The learned AG and SG shall assist the court,”
Notably, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale declined to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order on March 24.
The controversial remarks from the Allahabad High Court were made on March 17 while modifying a summoning order. The High Court revised the charges against two accused individuals, who were initially summoned to face trial under Section 376 of the IPC (Rape) and Section 18 (Punishment for attempt to commit an offence) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Instead, the High Court directed that the accused be tried under the lesser charge of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe), in addition to Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).
In this context, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra stated,
“The allegation against accused Pawan and Akash is that they grabbed the breasts of the victim and Akash tried to bring down the lower garment of the victim, and for that purpose, they had broken the string of her lower garments and attempted to drag her beneath the culvert. However, due to the intervention of witnesses, they left the victim and fled the scene. This fact is not sufficient to draw the inference that the accused had intended to commit rape on the victim, as no other actions are attributed to them that would support such an alleged desire.”
In this regard, Union Minister for Women and Child Development Annpurna Devi has strongly criticized a recent judgment by the Allahabad High Court.
In her reaction, Ms. Devi labeled the ruling as “wrong” and urged the Supreme Court to take notice of the issue. She cautioned that “such a judgment would send a wrong message to society.”
Earlier, senior advocate Shobha Gupta has penned a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), urging him to take suo motu cognizance of the issue.
In her letter, Gupta stated that “the judge’s interpretation is completely incorrect and demonstrates an insensitive and irresponsible approach to the issue.
Gupta expressed that this ruling has profoundly unsettled her understanding of the law and left her feeling broken after reading news reports about it. She urged the CJI to address the matter from both an administrative and judicial standpoint.
The case involved Pawan and Akash, who were accused of assaulting an 11-year-old girl in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh, by grabbing her breasts, breaking her pyjama string, and attempting to drag her under a culvert.
The accused fled the scene after being interrupted by passers-by.
The incident, which occurred in 2021, began when the accused offered the child a lift. Initially, the Kasganj trial court had directed that Pawan and Akash face charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for rape and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
However, a bench led by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the accused should be tried under Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) along with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).
Counsel for one of the defendants also contended that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is not expected to thoroughly evaluate the evidence and materials gathered during the investigation.
The judge concluded that there was no evidence suggesting that the accused were determined to commit rape.
Regarding the third accused, Ashok, who is Pawan’s father, the allegation is that he abused and threatened the complainant when she approached him after the incident.
Consequently, Ashok has been summoned under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
