The Supreme Court Today (April 15) criticized judges for making insensitive remarks against rape survivors. It warned that justice must be done and seen to be done, especially in sexual violence cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today gave a serious warning to all judges, asking them not to make wrong or hurtful remarks in cases related to sexual violence against women.
A Bench of two judges, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, said they were very unhappy with a recent comment made by the Allahabad High Court.
In that comment, the High Court said that the woman who filed the rape complaint was herself responsible for what happened to her.
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of such a statement.
That comment was made by Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh from the Allahabad High Court on March 11, 2025. He had given bail to a man who was arrested in December 2024. The man was accused of raping a woman he had met at a bar in Hauz Khas, Delhi.
The Supreme Court explained that while it is the judge’s decision whether to give bail or not, they should not say anything that blames the victim unnecessarily.
Justice Gavai pointed out,
“There is another order now by another judge. Yes bail can be granted. But what is this discussion that ‘she herself invited trouble etc’. One has to be careful when saying such things especially on this side (judges).”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also shared his concern.
He said,
“Complete justice should not only be done but also seen to be done. How a common person perceives such orders will also have to be seen.”
The Supreme Court gave these remarks while hearing a special case that it had started by itself (suo motu). This was in connection with another decision by the Allahabad High Court.
In that earlier case, the High Court had said that certain acts — like touching a child’s breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and trying to pull her under a culvert — did not count as rape or even as trying to commit rape.
An organisation named We the Women of India brought this earlier High Court judgment to the Supreme Court’s attention. After reading it, the Supreme Court felt that the High Court judge who made that decision did not show enough sensitivity toward the victim.
The top court took up the case on March 26 and put a stay on the High Court’s order. The Court said that this order was not just a mistake made in a rush.
The Supreme Court also asked for official replies from the Central Government and the Uttar Pradesh Government. It also called for help from Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
On Tuesday, when this matter came up again, the Supreme Court postponed the hearing for four more weeks.
The judges said,
“Let the case be listed after 4 weeks. Let service on respondents be completed.”
The Allahabad High Court had made its controversial remarks on March 17, 2025, when it changed the charges in a criminal case. In that case, two people were first called to face trial under Section 376 of IPC (which means rape) and Section 18 of the POCSO Act (punishment for trying to commit a crime). But the High Court changed the charges to less serious ones.
It said they should now be tried under Section 354-B IPC (which deals with assault to disrobe a woman) and Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act (which relate to aggravated sexual assault).
While changing the charges, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court said:
“…the allegation against accused Pawan and Akash is that they grabbed the breasts of the victim and Akash tried to bring down lower garment of the victim and for that purpose they had broken string of her lower garments and tried to drag her beneath the culvert, but due to intervention of witnesses they left the victim and fled away from the place of incident. This fact is not sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons had determined to commit rape on victim as apart from these facts no other act is attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim.”
The High Court also added:
“In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination.”
Because of these remarks and the change in charges, the earlier court order was cancelled. The lower court was told to issue a new order under the updated charges.
All this led the Supreme Court to step in and take up the issue on its own, to make sure that victims of sexual violence are treated with proper respect and care by the legal system.
CASE TITLE:
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
PREVIOUSLY IN APEX COURT
On 25th March Supreme Court took the initiative to open a suo motu case to review a contentious order from the Allahabad High Court, after 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.
Read High Court Order:
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
