The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong disapproval over the Allahabad High Court’s remarks against a college student who had filed a rape complaint, cautioning that such comments reflect insensitivity and that judges must exercise care while handling cases of sexual violence.
The criticism came in response to observations made by the Allahabad High Court in an order dated March 11, where it granted bail to the accused in a rape case and suggested that the victim had “invited trouble and was also responsible for the same.”
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih addressed the issue while hearing a separate but related case. The Supreme Court had previously taken suo motu cognisance of another Allahabad High Court order, issued on March 17, which controversially ruled that acts such as grabbing a girl’s breasts and breaking the drawstrings of her pyjama were “not sufficient” to establish charges of rape or attempted rape.
Justice Gavai, referring to both orders, remarked, “There is another order now by another judge. Bail can be granted, but what is this observation about the victim inviting trouble? One must be very careful when making such statements, especially from the judicial side.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisting the court in the matter, emphasized the importance of judicial conduct, saying, “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The way a common person perceives such orders also matters.”
The bench has postponed further hearings in the suo motu case regarding the March 17 order by four weeks.
Earlier, during a hearing on March 26, the Supreme Court had already stayed the High Court’s March 17 ruling, terming the observations “insensitive” and “inhuman.” The court had remarked:
“In normal circumstances, we are slow to grant a stay at this stage. But given the observations recorded in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26, which are wholly inconsistent with established legal principles and reflect an inhuman and insensitive approach, we find it appropriate to stay those observations.”
The March 11 order, which has now drawn the Supreme Court’s scrutiny, relates to a case reported on September 21, 2024. According to the police, the victim, a postgraduate student from Noida, attended a music event in South Delhi along with friends, where she met the accused, a fellow student who was known to her friend.
In her complaint, the woman alleged that the accused offered to drop her home but instead drove her to an apartment in Gurgaon, where he allegedly raped her. She lodged a police complaint the following day.
The accused was subsequently arrested under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which prescribes punishment for rape. During the bail hearing, the accused’s lawyer argued that the encounter was consensual.
While granting bail, the High Court observed that both the victim and the accused were adults and suggested that the victim was capable of understanding the consequences of her decisions. The court controversially added:
“This court is of the view that even if the allegations made by the victim are accepted as true, it can also be concluded that she had invited trouble and was also responsible for the same. A similar stand has been taken by the victim in her statement.”
These comments have since drawn sharp criticism for perpetuating victim-blaming and for being out of step with the principles of justice, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene and underscore the need for judicial sensitivity in cases of sexual violence.