The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily against an Allahabad High Court judge, who recently said during a hearing that the woman herself had invited trouble and was responsible for the alleged rape committed against her.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the judges not to make inappropriate observations in cases involving sexual violence against women.
The top court of the country took exception to a recent observation made by the single-judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh on March 11, while granting bail to an accused arrested in December 2024 for the alleged rape of a woman he had met at a bar in Hauz Khas, Delhi.
Noting that the grant of bail was the sole discretion of the judge depending on the facts of each case, the Apex Court said that such unwarranted observations against the complainant should be avoided.
The top court of the country made these observation while hearing a suo motu case initiated by it in relation to another case in which the Allahabad High Court had held that acts of grabbing a child victim’s breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert do not constitute the offence of rape or attempt to rape
The Court had taken up the matter suo motu after the judgment was brought to the notice of Court by an organisation ‘We the Women of India’.
The Apex Court observed that judges need to be careful when saying such things.
It noted that complete justice should not only be done but also seen to be done.
SG Mehta said that it should also be kept in mind as to how a common person would perceive such orders.
The Bench made the observations while hearing a suo motu case initiated by it in connection with another case, wherein the same High Court had held that acts of grabbing a child victim’s breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert did not constitute the offence of rape or attempt to rape
The top court of the country took up the matter suo motu after the verdict was brought to its notice by an organisation ‘We the Women of India’.
On March 26, the Apex Court stayed the verdict after finding that the order reflected a lack of sensitivity on the part of the High Court judge, and also on the grounds that this was not a spur-of-the-moment verdict.
The top court of the country issued notice to the Union of India government and the State of Uttar Pradesh on the matter and also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani & Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
When the matter was taken up today, the Court deferred the hearing by four weeks.
On March 17, the single-judge Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made the controversial observations, while modifying a summoning order.
It altered the charges against the two accused, who were originally summoned to stand trial under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 18 (punishment for attempt to commit an offence) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Instead, the single-judge Bench 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), along with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).
After modifying the summoning order, the High Court directed the lower court to issue a fresh summoning order under the revised sections. This led to the Supreme Court taking up the matter suo motu.