Supreme Court May Frame Sensitivity Norms for Courts Handling Sexual Assault Cases

The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over the lack of sensitivity shown by several courts in cases involving sexual assault victims. Taking suo motu cognisance of an “insensitive and inhuman” judgment of the Allahabad High Court from March 2024, the Supreme Court has indicated that it may introduce comprehensive, gender-sensitive procedural guidelines applicable across all courts in the country.


Background: Allahabad High Court’s Controversial March 17 Judgment

The controversy began with a March 17 ruling of the Allahabad High Court which held that grabbing a minor girl’s breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her under a culvert did not amount to an attempt to rape. The High Court downgraded the charge from attempt to rape to Section 354B IPC and certain POCSO provisions, claiming that the act had not progressed sufficiently to constitute an attempt.

The Supreme Court immediately suspended this ruling, calling it “unfortunate”, “insensitive”, and contrary to established criminal jurisprudence.


Supreme Court’s Observations and Concerns

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed disappointment at the decreasing sensitivity in judicial language and reasoning in sexual offence cases.

The Court stated that:

  • High Courts must demonstrate a higher degree of sensitivity in sexual assault matters.

  • Judicial observations that trivialize sexual violence can have a chilling effect on victims and society.

  • Such remarks may force survivors and families into compromise, especially at the trial court level.

  • There is an emerging pattern of insensitive judicial reasoning, not isolated to a single case.

The Supreme Court emphasised its intention to frame uniform national guidelines to ensure all courts adopt a gender-sensitive approach.


Repeated Judicial Insensitivity: Concerns Raised by Women’s Rights Groups

Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, representing the NGO We the Women of India, informed the Court that the Allahabad High Court ruling was not an isolated incident. She highlighted disturbing trends:

  • Other benches of the Allahabad High Court had made comments suggesting that intoxicated victims invite trouble.

  • The Calcutta High Court and Rajasthan High Court have issued similar remarks.

  • In Kerala, even in-camera trials have failed to protect survivors, with multiple persons allowed to be present during testimony, leading to harassment.

These examples strengthened the Supreme Court’s resolve to introduce mandatory sensitivity norms for trial courts and High Courts.


Supreme Court Stays High Court Ruling in Entirety

The Supreme Court ordered:

  • Complete suspension of the Allahabad High Court judgment.

  • The trial will continue on charges of attempt to rape under IPC and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.

  • The state must ensure all accused are informed of further proceedings.

The Court also sought written submissions from all stakeholders regarding what the new sensitivity guidelines should include.


Case Background: Assault on an 11-Year-Old Girl

The incident occurred in November 2021 when three men—Pawan, Akash and Ashok—offered an 11-year-old neighbour a ride, then allegedly grabbed her breasts and attempted to drag her under a culvert. The trial court treated the act as an attempt to rape.

However, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court downgraded the charge, reasoning that the accused had not progressed "beyond preparation." This interpretation drew severe criticism from legal experts, activists, and political leaders.


Nationwide Reaction and Suo Motu Cognisance by Supreme Court

Following public uproar and a letter from senior advocate Shobha Gupta, the Supreme Court took up the matter suo motu on March 26. During the hearing:

  • The Court described the High Court’s reasoning as a “complete lack of sensitivity” and “very serious”.

  • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed strong objection, stating that the High Court judgment required administrative action.

  • The Court noted that the ruling was not a hurried decision—it was reserved for four months—showing deliberate judicial reasoning.

The ruling triggered strong criticism from civil society and political leaders, including the Union Minister for Women and Child Development Annapurna Devi and MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, both of whom condemned the judgment as unacceptable in any civilised society.


Relevant Statutes Applicable in the Case

The legal provisions relevant to the incident and controversy include:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

  • Section 376/511 IPC: Attempt to commit rape

  • Section 354B IPC: Assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe

  • Section 354, 354A, 354D IPC: Outraging modesty, sexual harassment, stalking (contextual relevance)

The key debate revolves around the judicial interpretation of "attempt" versus "preparation," where past precedents usually adopt a broader view in sexual offences.

2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)

  • Section 7/8: Sexual assault

  • Section 9/10: Aggravated sexual assault / punishment

  • Section 3/4: Penetrative sexual assault (not applicable here but forms the backdrop for attempt)

The POCSO Act adopts child-friendly procedures and recognises that even non-penetrative acts can constitute serious sexual offences.


Constitutional Provisions Implicated

Article 21: Right to Life and Dignity

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that sexual violence violates the right to dignity, bodily autonomy, and mental well-being.

Article 14: Equality Before Law

Insensitive judicial remarks undermine equal protection for women and children.

Article 15(3): Special Protection for Women and Children

The Constitution allows the state (including judiciary through guidelines) to introduce safeguards for vulnerable groups.

Article 142: Supreme Court’s Power to Issue Guidelines

The Court may frame binding norms to fill legislative gaps, similar to:

  • Vishaka Guidelines (1997)

  • Guidelines on media reporting of sexual offences

  • Directions on witness protection

  • Gender-neutral procedural safeguards


Judicial Precedents Supporting Sensitivity in Sexual Offence Cases

1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)

The Supreme Court emphasised that courts must remain sensitive while dealing with rape cases and avoid harsh or trivialising comments.

2. Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2013)

The Court held that the "two-finger test" violates dignity and should not be relied upon.

3. Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

The Supreme Court prohibited judges from making misogynistic comments, granting bail with conditions like tying rakhi, or suggesting compromise in rape cases.

4. State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000)

Held that sexual offences must be handled with utmost seriousness and sensitivity.

5. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996)

Recognised rape as a violation of Article 21.

These precedents align with the Supreme Court’s current intention to issue sensitivity guidelines.


Conclusion: Towards National Sensitivity Guidelines for Sexual Assault Cases

The Supreme Court’s move signals an important shift. It recognises that insensitive judicial reasoning does not merely affect individual victims—it shapes public perception of justice and can discourage survivors from coming forward.

By framing nationwide sensitivity norms, the Court aims to:

  • Reinforce constitutional guarantees of dignity

  • Ensure humane treatment of survivors

  • Prevent judicial trivialization of sexual violence

  • Standardise gender-sensitive procedures across all courts

This case may become a landmark moment in India’s judicial approach to sexual offences, strengthening the victim-centric foundation of criminal justice.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Exploring Articles 236 to 238 of the Indian Constitution: A Contemporary Discourse