The Supreme Court warned States and UTs of ex-parte action and fines for delaying replies in a PIL on rising crimes against women. Justice Nagarathna stressed preventive steps like moral education over harsher punishments.
New Delhi: On August 19, the Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticized the States and Union Territories for delaying their replies in a public interest litigation (PIL) that raises concern over the increasing crimes against women, especially sexual offences.
The case was being heard by a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan.
The PIL had been admitted on September 13, 2024, and notices were already issued by the Court. When the matter came up, the lawyer for Karnataka asked for two more weeks to file the State’s reply.
Justice Nagarathna directed that all responses should be given to Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, who would prepare a compiled record.
Recording the position, the Court said:
“Learned counsels for respective states/ Union Territories seek time to file their responses to the petition. List after four weeks, on September 23.”
The lawyer for the petitioner told the Bench that Nagaland, Bihar, and the Ministry of Law had already filed their affidavits. The Court, however, gave a strict warning that States which failed to respond on time would face action.
The Court made it very clear:
“Those states who don’t file the reply, the bench will proceed ex-parte against them and impose fine also.”
The next hearing of the matter has been fixed for September 23, 2025.
Earlier in the same matter, on May 6, the Court had suggested adding moral education and citizenship values in school curriculums across the country, both in government and private institutions.
Justice Nagarathna had asked:
“Why can’t there be two classes in a week for this subject in all government and private aided and unaided schools in the country? It will help the children.”
She also said that children could bring change at home by sharing these lessons with their families. She observed:
“The children can even educate their parents about it, if they are interested in school.”
Senior Advocate Aabad Harshad Ponda, who appeared virtually before the Court, stressed the need for strong reforms in education to prevent crimes against women.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Warns Police: Don’t Name Sexual Offence Victims Even in FIRs
Ponda, who has more than thirty years of experience in criminal law and practices mainly in the Bombay High Court, filed this PIL pointing out that while India’s legal system has strict punishments for sexual crimes, these punishments alone have not reduced the number of such offences.
The petition explained that punishment after the crime is not enough and that preventive steps through education and awareness are necessary. It highlighted that there is a clear gap between the intention of lawmakers and how much the public actually knows about the law.
The petition noted:
“The challenge is not merely punishing offenders, but ensuring that such crimes are not committed in the first place.”
The petitioner argued that laws must be easy to understand and accessible to the people, especially the younger generation. Referring to the changes made in the law after the 2012 Nirbhaya case, the petition stated that even though punishments became harsher, rape cases have not gone down.
The petition said:
“Despite the rape laws being made more stringent post-Nirbhaya, this crime only seems to be on the rise.”
It also warned against making laws harsher without proper thought, saying this would be just a “knee-jerk reaction” of increasing punishments.
The petition raised a constitutional concern about some recent laws in states like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal that introduce mandatory death penalties for rape-cum-murder cases.
It reminded the Court of the landmark judgment in Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), in which the Supreme Court had held that mandatory death penalties violate fundamental rights and cannot stand under the Constitution.
The petitioner also warned that extremely strict provisions could be misused, leading to false complaints, misuse of process, and denial of fair trial rights like anticipatory bail.
The PIL argued that justice should be fair and balanced, and preventive measures like education are better than only making punishments harsher.
The petition strongly urged that moral education and gender sensitivity must be included in school curriculums. It suggested that boys especially should be taught about gender equality from an early age, so that their mindset does not tolerate or normalize violence against women.
Case Title:
Aabad Harshad Ponda v. Union of India & Ors.
Click Here to Read More Reports On sexual offence
