Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court Considers Guidelines for High Courts on Insensitive Remarks on Sexual Assault Cases: New Delhi, December 8 — The Supreme Court on Monday warned that insensitive judicial observations in sexual assault cases could have a “chilling effect” on survivors, their families and society, as it considered framing comprehensive guidelines for courts across the country.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while hearing suo motu proceedings initiated after the Court took cognisance of “insensitive” observations in a March 17 order of the Allahabad High Court. Lawyers told the bench that similar problematic comments — both oral and written — have recently emerged from several high courts in sexual assault matters.
Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for an intervenor, pointed to another recent case from the Allahabad High Court in which the judge observed that because the incident occurred at night, it amounted to an “invitation” to the accused. She also cited troubling instances from courts in Calcutta and Rajasthan.
Another lawyer highlighted a fresh incident from a trial court earlier on Monday, alleging that despite an in-camera proceeding, “several people were present” in the courtroom and the survivor was harassed during the hearing.
“If you can cite all these instances, then we can consider issuing a set of comprehensive guidelines,” CJI Kant said. “Any observations of this nature can have a chilling effect on victims, their families and society at large. At times, such modalities are also adopted to make them withdraw the complaints.”
The bench noted that while high court orders draw scrutiny, similar remarks at the trial court level often go unnoticed. It asked lawyers to submit written suggestions before the next hearing.
READ: AI-Based Resolution of Cheque Bounce Cases Feasible, Says Ex-CJI Justice Chandrachud
SC to Set Aside Allahabad HC Order; Trial to Proceed Under Stricter Charges
The Supreme Court indicated it would set aside the controversial March 17 Allahabad High Court order, which held that the alleged acts of “mere” grabbing the breasts of a minor, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to pull down her lower garment were insufficient to infer an attempt to commit rape.
The high court had quashed the trial court’s decision to frame charges under the harsher provisions of rape (Sections 376 and 511 IPC), instead directing charges under Section 354B IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force intended to disrobe a woman and carries a sentence of three to seven years.
To prevent prejudice to the survivor, the Supreme Court stayed the high court’s order and directed that if the trial court issues summons, the accused must be summoned under Sections 376 and 511 IPC, as well as under POCSO, without being influenced by the high court’s earlier conclusions. The bench clarified that this direction should not be construed as an indication of the accused’s guilt.
READ: Mediation Must Move Beyond Elite Legal Spaces: Former CJI BR Gavai
Accused Fail to Appear Before SC
The bench was informed that the accused had twice been served notices by state agencies but had not appeared before the Supreme Court. Senior advocate H. S. Phoolka, appearing for a petitioner, said the accused were regularly attending trial court proceedings and were fully aware of the matter’s pendency before the apex court.
The Court directed the concerned SHO to notify the accused and allowed them the option to join proceedings on the next date, making it clear the matter would not be adjourned further over service-related issues.
READ: Supreme Court Strips Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Prashant Kumar of Criminal Roster
Case Stemmed from Alleged Assault on Minor
The main case concerns allegations that three men stopped a woman and her 14-year-old daughter, grabbed the minor’s breasts, pulled the drawstrings of her lower garment and attempted to drag her beneath a culvert. The Allahabad High Court, in its impugned ruling, found these actions insufficient to infer an intent to commit rape and suggested lesser charges under Section 354 IPC.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the issue after receiving a letter from the women’s collective “We the Women of India.” In a previous hearing on March 26, a bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai had sharply criticised the high court’s remarks as “totally unknown to the canons of law” and reflective of an “inhuman approach.”
READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court seeks response from judge accused of granting bail to relative
