The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the Allahabad High Court’s recent ruling that grabbing a woman’s breasts and pulling the string of her pyjama do not amount to rape. Expressing deep concern, a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih took up the matter suo motu on Wednesday, condemning the insensitivity of the ruling.
Justice Gavai did not hold back in his remarks, stating, “This is a serious matter. The judge has shown total insensitivity. This was at the stage of issuing summons! We regret having to use such harsh words against a judge.” He also called on the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, who oversees judicial assignments, to take necessary action.
Legal experts have denounced the Allahabad High Court’s interpretation of what constitutes a rape charge, warning that such observations undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The controversial ruling was issued by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on March 17 in response to a revision petition challenging an order by a Kasganj Special Judge, who had summoned two accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in addition to other charges.
According to the case records, the alleged assault occurred on November 10, 2021. The complainant, a woman, was returning home with her 14-year-old daughter when they encountered three men from their village—Pawan, Akash, and Ashok. Pawan offered to give the daughter a lift on his motorcycle, to which the mother agreed. However, instead of safely escorting her home, the accused stopped at an isolated location, where they allegedly groped her and attempted to pull down her lower garment. Akash allegedly tried to drag her beneath a culvert. The assault was interrupted when two individuals arrived at the scene upon hearing the victim’s cries. The accused then threatened them with a country-made pistol before fleeing.
Following an investigation, the trial court found sufficient grounds to summon the accused for rape charges. However, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the rape charge, reasoning that the accused’s actions, while criminal, did not constitute an attempt to rape.
Justice Mishra ruled that although the accused had grabbed the victim’s breasts and attempted to remove her lower garment, these actions alone did not establish intent to commit rape. The court emphasized that for an attempt to rape charge to be sustained, the prosecution must prove that the accused had progressed beyond mere preparation and demonstrated clear intent.
The court further stated that the allegations, while serious, did not meet the threshold for an attempt to rape charge under the law. Instead, it held that the accused should be charged under Section 354(b) of the IPC, which pertains to assault with intent to disrobe, and Section 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which covers aggravated sexual assault on a minor.
The ruling has sparked widespread criticism, with legal experts arguing that such judicial interpretations fail to acknowledge the gravity of sexual violence and embolden perpetrators. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals a growing concern over judicial insensitivity in cases involving crimes against women and children.
With the matter now under the scrutiny of the top court, the ruling’s implications for judicial accountability and the legal definition of sexual assault remain a focal point of national debate.
