Today, On 20th March, During a bail plea hearing, Justice Surya Kant slammed the counsel for repeatedly referring to a minor’s case as a “consensual relationship” in the Special Leave Petition (SLP). The judge questioned the counsel’s legal understanding, emphasizing that a minor cannot legally consent. Expressing frustration, he remarked, “Are you the Advocate on Record who qualified the exam? If so, then something is wrong with the committee,we will investigate it.” The exchange highlights concerns over legal competence in sensitive cases involving minors.
New Delhi: During a bail plea hearing, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court sharply criticized the counsel for repeatedly labeling a minor’s case as a “consensual relationship” in the Special Leave Petition (SLP).
The petitioner had been in custody since May 2024, and the counsel contended that it was a standard bail application.
However, Justice Kant challenged the legal justification for referring to it as a consensual relationship, considering the alleged victim was a minor.
He inquired,
“You have referred to ‘consensual relationship’ 20 times in your SLP. What is a consensual relationship in law? What is her age?”
Upon discovering that the girl was just 15 years old, Justice Kant expressed his Irritation,
“Please show me a single line in your SLP stating that she is of legal age according to you. You admit everywhere that she is 15 years old. It’s mentally distressing to read this. In every paragraph, you keep saying ‘consensual relationship.’ What do you mean by that?”
Criticizing the counsel’s grasp of fundamental legal principles, Justice Kant added,
“Are you the Advocate on Record who qualified the exam? If so, then something is wrong with the committee we will investigate it.”
The Advocate on Record (AoR), Sadhana Sandhu, later offered an apology to the court.
Justice Kant continued to question the standards of legal practice,
“How are these individuals passing? You don’t understand basic law! Tomorrow you might claim this relationship has an eight-month-old child!”
This exchange highlights the judiciary’s firm stance against the misinterpretation of laws concerning minors and raises serious concerns about the competence of legal representatives involved in sensitive cases.
The counsel for the complainant argued that at the charge-framing stage, the trial court is not required to conduct a detailed analysis or evaluation of the evidence gathered during the investigation. Instead, it must only establish whether a prima facie case exists to warrant proceeding with the trial.
The Court noted that there was no evidence on record indicating that the accused had a clear intent to commit rape against the victim.
It pointed out that neither the complaint nor the witness statements contained allegations that accused Akash was unsettled after breaking the string of the minor victim’s lower garment.
The order stated,
“It is also not stated by witnesses that due to this act of the accused, the victim became naked or undressed. There is no allegation that the accused attempted penetrative sexual assault against the victim,”
The Court remarked that the allegations did not sufficiently constitute an offense of attempted rape.
The Court explained,
“To establish a charge of attempted rape, the prosecution must demonstrate that the actions went beyond mere preparation. The distinction between preparation and an actual attempt to commit an offense lies primarily in the greater degree of determination,”
Consequently, the summoning order was modified, and the lower court was instructed to issue a new summoning order under the revised sections.
Advocate Ajay Kumar Vashistha represented the accused, while Advocate Indra Kumar Singh appeared for the respondents.
Read Order