Insensitive, inhuman': SC stays Allahabad HC's controversial observations on rape

PTI, NEW DELHI, MARCH 26, 2025 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday took strong exception to the Allahabad High Court's recent observations that the mere grabbing of a woman's breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her "pyjama" did not constitute rape. The apex court stayed these remarks, calling them "totally insensitive" and an "inhuman approach."

Calling it a "very serious matter," a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih said, "In normal circumstances, we are slow in granting a stay at this stage. But since the observations in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 are totally unknown to the canons of law and depict a total lack of sensitivity and an inhuman approach, we are inclined to stay the said observations."

The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter after the contentious remarks of the High Court were brought to the notice of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna by the "We the Women of India" collective. The staying of the High Court's controversial observations, made in a March 17 verdict, means they cannot be used in any judicial proceedings to seek relief by the present accused or others.

The High Court's verdict came in response to a plea by two individuals challenging a trial court's order summoning them for the alleged offence of attempting to rape a minor. The High Court held that the offence of attempt to rape was not made out against the accused and instead ruled that they were liable to be summoned for the lesser offence of assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe her.

Referring to the High Court's observations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, "This is one judgment I take very serious exception to." Attorney General R. Venkataramani also appeared in the matter.

"It is a very serious matter," Justice Gavai said, adding that the judgment exhibited "total insensitivity on the part of the judge." The bench further stated, "We are sorry to use such harsh words against the judge."

Mehta pointed out that the Chief Justice of the High Court was the master of the roster and suggested that some steps should be taken.

"We have perused the order (of the High Court). We are at pains to say that some of the observations made in the impugned order, particularly in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26, depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment," the bench said.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the verdict was not an offhand remark dictated on the spur of the moment in the courtroom but a carefully considered judgment.