By The Sampadak Express
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over a pattern of “insensitive” judicial observations emerging from the Allahabad High Court in cases involving crimes against women and minors.
The apex court’s remarks come in the wake of controversial decisions by two High Court judges. A Single Judge, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, recently ruled that the act of groping a minor girl and breaking her pyjama string did not constitute an attempt to rape, downgrading the charges to outraging the modesty of a woman. Shortly thereafter, another judge, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, granted bail to a rape accused, remarking that the survivor had “invited trouble and was responsible for the same.”
A bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice A.G. Masih, voiced serious concern: “What is happening in this High Court? Why make all these observations? One has to be very careful with these cases which are so sensitive.” The court was hearing a suo motu case taken up in response to Justice Mishra’s March 17 order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisting the court in the matter, noted, “Justice should not only be done, but seen to be done. What will the common man perceive from these remarks?”
The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the March 17 order, calling it “totally insensitive, inhuman” and “unknown to the tenets of law.”
According to the prosecution, the two accused had offered a lift to the minor, then sexually assaulted her by groping her, breaking her pyjama string, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert. They fled only when passers-by intervened.
A petition filed by the victim’s mother, alongside the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance and represented by senior advocate H.S. Phoolka, argued that the accused had taken direct steps toward rape and should be charged accordingly. The plea contended that the accused did not desist voluntarily but were interrupted.
Justice Gavai further criticized Justice Mishra’s reasoning, highlighting that although the order described the victim’s ordeal in detail, it paradoxically concluded there was no intent to commit rape — a conclusion the Supreme Court found deeply troubling.
The Bench adjourned the suo motu matter on Tuesday due to incomplete service of pleadings among the parties.
