Supreme Court stays order of Allahabad HC that ruled grabbing the breast is not rape bid
The Supreme Court on Wednesday intervened in a controversial ruling by the Allahabad High Court, staying the observations made in its order, which stated that merely grabbing a woman’s breast and pulling the string of a ‘pyjama’ do not constitute the offence of rape. The apex court expressed grave concern over the insensitivity of such remarks and decided to take suo motu cognizance of the matter.
As reported by Bar and Bench, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih voiced their dismay over the language used in the high court’s ruling, stating that they were “pained” to observe the “total insensitiveness and inhuman approach” reflected in the order. The Supreme Court’s bench consequently issued notices to the Central Government, the Uttar Pradesh state government, and other concerned authorities, seeking responses to the high court’s controversial remarks.
The Allahabad High Court’s order, dated March 17, faced widespread criticism, including from senior advocate Indira Jaising. Expressing her outrage over the ruling, she took to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), calling for immediate suo motu action by the Supreme Court. She argued that the Supreme Court had previously intervened in cases of judicial misconduct for much less. In her post, she criticized the high court’s position, stating, “Grabbing breasts, breaking pyjama string is not enough for charge of attempt to rape, says Allahabad High Court,” underscoring the perceived leniency of the court’s interpretation.
According to a report by LiveLaw, the high court had made this statement while partially modifying an earlier order issued by a trial court. The trial court had summoned two individuals, identified as Pawan and Akash, under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 18 (attempt to commit an offence) of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, the Allahabad High Court’s Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra ruled that the accused would not face rape or attempted rape charges. Instead, they would be charged under Section 354-B of the IPC, which pertains to the assault or use of criminal force with the intent to disrobe, and Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, which deal with aggravated sexual assault.
In its ruling, the high court reasoned that the allegations against the accused, Pawan and Akash, did not fulfill the legal criteria necessary to establish an attempt to commit rape. The court emphasized the distinction between mere preparation and an actual attempt to commit an offence, stating that to establish a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The court noted that the defining characteristic of an attempted crime lies in the greater degree of determination displayed by the accused.
By partially allowing the criminal revision plea filed by the accused, the high court essentially ruled that while the actions of the accused were punishable under other provisions, they did not meet the legal threshold for an attempt to rape charge. The decision, however, sparked outrage among legal experts and the general public, leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention.
As the case unfolds, the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the high court’s observations indicates a potential reassessment of the legal interpretations surrounding sexual offences and attempts to commit rape. Legal scholars and activists argue that such judicial pronouncements shape public perception of sexual crimes and influence legal precedents. The apex court’s final ruling on this matter is expected to have significant implications for the interpretation and application of laws related to sexual offences in India.
