By Binny Yadav
On March 17, 2025, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to a rape accused—a decision well within judicial discretion. What ignited national outrage, however, was not the bail itself, but the remarks that accompanied it. Justice Singh suggested the survivor had “invited trouble,” in effect placing the blame for the crime on the woman herself.
This wasn’t a passing comment. It was a flashpoint—a judicial statement that struck at the heart of constitutional morality and revived deep-seated concerns about entrenched misogyny in the Indian judiciary.
So explosive was the backlash that the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance, a rare and serious move underscoring the gravity of the issue. A bench led by Justice BR Gavai, alongside Justice AG Masih, heard the matter. During the proceedings, Justice Gavai asked a piercing question that made national headlines: “What is happening in this High Court?”
His concern was not rhetorical—it was a warning. It alluded to a discernible pattern emerging from the Allahabad High Court: a series of judicial pronouncements that veer from constitutional values and show worrying signs of gender insensitivity.
A Series Of Judicial Shocks
Justice Singh’s controversial remark isn’t an outlier. It forms part of a pattern. In recent years, the Allahabad High Court has delivered a string of judgments that have shocked legal scholars, rights activists, and the public.
One such case involved Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who ruled that “groping a minor and breaking her pyjama string did not amount to the grievous crime of attempted rape.” The ruling appeared to minimize the assault, ignoring the trauma inflicted on the victim and misinterpreting the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
These judgments collectively reflect a worrying judicial trend—one where crimes of sexual violence are often interpreted through a lens of bias, indifference, or even disbelief. Instead of upholding the dignity and rights of survivors, these rulings seem to question their conduct or diminish their suffering.
Supreme Court Intervention: Course Correction Or Compulsion?
In the Supreme Court hearing on the March 17 bail order, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made a pivotal observation: “Justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done. What will the common man perceive from these remarks?”
This question goes to the core of judicial legitimacy. Judges are not merely interpreters of law; they are guardians of public trust. Their words matter—especially in cases involving sexual violence, where trauma is compounded by social stigma and power imbalance.
Justice Gavai echoed this sentiment, cautioning that “one has to be very careful with these cases which are so sensitive.” He emphasized the judiciary’s dual responsibility—to deliver justice, and to do so with empathy, constitutional fidelity, and social awareness.
A Pattern Or A Systemic Crisis?
The frequency and nature of these rulings suggest the problem goes deeper than individual misjudgment. They reveal a systemic issue in how judges are trained, appointed, and held accountable.
The Allahabad High Court, once celebrated for its landmark rulings, now finds itself under scrutiny for judgments that undermine constitutional rights, particularly of women and children. This raises pressing questions:
- Are judges being adequately sensitized to issues of gender-based violence?
- Does the judicial training system reflect contemporary understanding of trauma, power, and consent?
- What institutional checks exist when courts repeatedly deliver rulings that erode public confidence?
Towards Corrective Action
The Supreme Court’s intervention may offer short-term correction, but systemic change is the real need of the hour. The Collegium system must integrate qualitative evaluations—including temperament, past rulings, and gender sensitivity —before elevation. More importantly:
- Mandatory gender-sensitization workshops for sitting judges should be institutionalized.
- Refresher courses in constitutional values and evolving criminal jurisprudence must be regularized.
- An independent oversight mechanism could be considered to review problematic rulings and recommend remedial training or censure.
“What is happening in this High Court?” is not merely judicial introspection—it is a constitutional alarm. It warns of a crisis that, if ignored, could corrode faith in the judiciary itself.
Justice must be blind—but it must never be indifferent.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator