The Supreme Court expressed disapproval over an order passed by the Allahabad High Court granting bail to a rape accused, noting that the observations made by the High Court reflected insensitivity towards the victim’s allegations. The Court questioned the judicial propriety of remarks attributing responsibility for the alleged incident to the prosecutrix herself.
The matter arose out of a bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court to an accused who had allegedly committed rape on a college student. According to the prosecutrix, she had met the accused at a bar and, due to intoxication, accompanied him to his relative’s residence to rest. It was there, she alleged, that the accused sexually assaulted her on two occasions.
While allowing the bail plea, the Single Judge of the High Court observed that even accepting the victim’s version as true, she appeared to have "invited trouble" and was "responsible" for the alleged act. The Court further noted that the victim was a postgraduate student and hence was presumed to understand the "morality and significance of her act". It also referred to her medical report, which showed a torn hymen but recorded no medical opinion on sexual assault. These findings formed the basis of the bail order.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, contended that such observations from constitutional courts, even if made in the context of a bail matter, have far-reaching consequences on public confidence in the justice system. He stressed that justice must not only be done but must be perceived to have been done, especially from the standpoint of the common man who may not be conversant with the technicalities of law.
Justice B.R. Gavai, who was presiding over the bench along with Justice A.G. Masih, critically remarked on the High Court's approach, stating, “Granting bail is one thing, but why must such observations be made?” He emphasized the necessity for members of the judiciary to exercise restraint and demonstrate sensitivity while recording findings, particularly in matters involving sexual offences. The Court underlined the importance of maintaining the dignity of the complainant and ensuring that judicial comments do not perpetuate stereotypes or result in re-traumatization.
The Apex Court did not pass any final orders in the present matter as the proceedings pertained to connected cases, including another challenge involving a separate controversial bail order by the same High Court.
Picture Source :
