Today, On 8th April, During a hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting the rise in crimes against women, particularly rape cases, the Supreme Court made a strong appeal to the government. The bench stated, “Leave the women alone in this country; let them grow,” urging authorities to broaden sensitisation efforts. The Court stressed the urgent need for awareness and prevention measures. It emphasized that protecting women’s rights and dignity must be a national priority.
New Delhi: While hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the troubling increase in crimes against women, the Supreme Court today highlighted the necessity for a comprehensive sensitization campaign that goes beyond educational institutions and reaches the broader population, particularly those who are uneducated or have dropped out of school.
The Bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, listened to discussions about government initiatives aimed at addressing gender-based violence, especially sexual assault and rape, through value-driven education and public awareness programs.
Also Read: Women’s Day 2025 Special: Key Laws Protecting Women’s Rights in India
During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna highlighted the daily risks faced by women in both urban and rural settings.
She stated,
“Whether in cities or rural areas, the vulnerability of women is something men will never understand. The feeling a woman experiences the moment she steps onto a street, a bus, or a railway station with the constant burden of ensuring her own safety is an additional mental load she carries alongside her responsibilities at home, at work, and in society,”
Addressing the overarching issues related to the petition, Justice Nagarathna added,
“The only thing we request is to leave the women alone in this country, not monitor, not restrain, just let them be. Let them grow; that’s all the women of this country are asking.”
Justice Nagarathna also recounted real-life instances of women being sexually assaulted when forced to defecate in the open due to a lack of toilets in rural areas.
She said,
“In villages, due to the lack of basic sanitation, young women wait until dusk to ease themselves, exposing them to the risk of assault. This not only affects their physical health but also their dignity and security,”
Representing the Union of India, the Senior Counsel informed the Court that while the National Education Policy (NEP) was available, the detailed syllabus and educational modules on moral education and gender sensitization had yet to be submitted.
Justice Nagarathna reminded the Counsel that the academic year had already started and that delays were no longer acceptable.
She said,
“We granted you time earlier. Now is the time to act, especially with the new academic session already having commenced,”
The Senior Counsel suggested that the NCERT might need to be included in the case since it has specific committees responsible for curriculum decisions. The Bench acknowledged this suggestion and granted a final three-week extension for the Union of India to file a comprehensive affidavit outlining current modules and proposed actions.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing the petitioner, emphasized that education alone would not suffice, as many offenders do not attend school or are beyond the age of formal education.
He argued,
“This cannot be limited to schools. Sensitization must take place at the level of local self-governments, media, and through broadcasts, seminars, and public advertisements,”
He pointed out that many individuals, despite having received formal education, still harbor regressive and harmful attitudes toward women.
Ponda contended,
“I am very grateful that the Hon’ble Court is taking pains to entertain my prayers. My principal prayer is, education yes, no difficulty, but the persons who indulge in this kind of behavior don’t even go to schools and academics. I am therefore making prayers in my petitions, to sensitise the media and the local self-governing institutions, about broadcast and awareness at all levels, even people who have passed out of schools, some of them have very bad moral training. It won’t be effective; if it is done at a level of schools, it must be done at local self-governing levels by seminars, advertisements, by broadcast, by media by internet. The deterrence of these kinds of crimes must be sensitized, not only to the educated but also to the uneducated people. Though we have free and compulsory education in the country, people do not go to schools. Practically, there is a big gap; there is a yawning gap between the provision and the actual implementation of people studying. We need to understand that all syllabus, everything which is done today, is lacking gravely… I am saying we need much more; this problem is a very serious problem. This whole attitude of this male chauvinism is reaching an extent that it is becoming so immune to the people that they are following it as a rule. This can’t be done only in schools, with greatest respect. This is to be done in the homes…”
He further suggested that just as statutory warnings appear on tobacco products, similar graphic warnings and deterrent messaging, including visual depictions of punishments like the gallows, should be widely disseminated through cinema, internet platforms, and public campaigns to instill a fear of legal consequences and raise awareness.
Ponda submitted,
“You have statutory warnings for cigarettes; you have provisions to behave dignifiedly with ladies. Why are there not statutory warnings of the gallows and the death sentence, the skull and bones, educating the public in theatre, in cinemas, on the internet, through books, seminars, and pamphlets… People don’t understand this. Only after committing the crime are they like, ‘No, no, we should not have done this.’ There should be a fear, a deterrent to awareness,”
Justice Nagarathna echoed these concerns and directed the government’s counsel to consider measures for sensitizing individuals outside the education system, stating,
“Please look into this aspect also that those out of school or who have never gone to school must be sensitized that women are not objects for assault or misuse. That mindset must go.”
Acknowledging the submissions, the Bench ordered,
“On the request made by the Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, finally three weeks’ time is granted to place on record the steps that would be taken in the context of the prayers offered by the petitioner. List the matter on 06.05.2025.”
On September 13, 2024, the Supreme Court had issued a notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the rising incidence of crimes against women, particularly rapes.
The petition, filed by Senior Advocate Aabad Harshad Ponda, who has over 32 years of experience in criminal law and primarily practices in the Bombay High Court, sought the Court’s intervention to tackle the root causes of these heinous crimes and ensure the effective implementation of existing laws.
The petition pointed out that despite India’s robust legal framework, which includes stringent laws against sexual offenses, the frequency of crimes such as rape continues to rise, indicating a failure in the proper enforcement and communication of these laws.
Also Read: 25 Landmark Judgments That Transformed Women’s Rights in India | Women’s Day 2025 Special
The petition, submitted through AoR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, expressed concerns about the gap between the creation of laws by the legislature and their dissemination to the public, especially regarding educating society about the consequences of these offenses.
It emphasized the urgent need for proactive measures to prevent such crimes rather than merely reacting to incidents. The petition highlighted that while the courts address offenders after the fact, the real challenge lies in preventing the commission of the crime itself.
Notably, despite the introduction of stricter rape laws following the 2012 Nirbhaya case, the rate of such crimes remains alarmingly high.
The petition stated,
“Despite the rape laws being made more stringent post-Nirbhaya, this crime only seems to be on the rise. Therefore, reacting to such situations by making the punishments for rape more stringent with a knee-jerk reaction is no solution to the problem,”
Case Title: Aabad Harshad Ponda v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (Crl.) No. 382/2024, Diary No. 41037/2024]
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
