The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the Allahabad High Court for its recent observation suggesting that a rape complainant had “invited trouble” upon herself.
The apex court called for greater caution and sensitivity from the judiciary, especially when handling cases involving sexual offences.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih expressed serious concern over the High Court's comment, stating that such remarks can undermine justice and place unwarranted blame on victims.
While reiterating that granting bail lies within a judge’s discretion and depends on the facts of each case, the Supreme Court underlined that personal or inappropriate opinions against the complainant should be avoided altogether.
Justice Gavai pointedly remarked, “Yes, bail can be granted, but what is this discussion that she herself invited trouble, etc.? One has to be careful when saying such things, especially on this side (the bench).”
His words reflect the court’s disapproval of observations that risk shifting the focus away from the accused and placing unjustified responsibility on victims.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also weighed in, stating that justice must not only be served but must also be seen to be served. He said the perception of such judicial remarks by ordinary citizens should be carefully considered, as they affect the public’s confidence in the legal system.
The Allahabad High Court had recently granted bail to an accused in a rape case, observing that the complainant had allegedly consumed alcohol and voluntarily visited the accused’s house, which the court described as “inviting trouble.”
This observation triggered widespread criticism, not only from the legal community but also from civil society groups, as being reflective of deep-seated bias and victim-blaming.
The Supreme Court's observations came during the hearing of a suo motu case it had initiated earlier regarding another judgment by the Allahabad High Court.
In that matter, the High Court had ruled that an act involving grabbing a minor’s breasts, breaking her pyjama string, and attempting to drag her under a culvert did not amount to rape or an attempt to rape.
The apex court had previously stayed that judgment, describing it as a display of “total insensitivity” and “lack of sensitivity” on the part of the judge.
The suo motu case was initiated after senior advocate Shobha Gupta, representing the organisation ‘We the Women of India’, brought the controversial judgment to the attention of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
The apex court had then issued notices to the Union government, the state of Uttar Pradesh, and the parties involved in the case, seeking their response. It had also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court in the matter.
The hearing of the case has now been adjourned for four weeks.
In the earlier controversial ruling dated 17 March, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court had downgraded charges against two accused men from rape and attempted rape under Section 376 IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
The judge instead directed that they be tried under Section 354-B of the IPC, which pertains to assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe, and relevant sections of the POCSO Act related to aggravated sexual assault.
The High Court justified its decision by stating that there was insufficient evidence to infer a determination on the part of the accused to commit rape.
It noted that the intervention of witnesses had prevented further action, and no other acts were attributed to the accused to show clear intent to rape the victim.
Follow us
