The recent Allahabad High Court (HC) judgment, which controversially ruled that acts like “grabbing a minor’s breasts” and “breaking her pyjama string” did not constitute an attempt to rape, has ignited a firestorm of criticism. The Supreme Court’s (SC) swift intervention to stay the order underscores a critical battle in India’s legal system: the need for judicial sensitivity in interpreting sexual violence. This case is not just about legal technicalities but about how the judiciary perceives intent, trauma, and justice for survivors.
The Controversial HC Judgment
On March 17, 2025, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad HC downgraded charges against two men accused of assaulting an 11-year-old girl. The accused had grabbed the child’s breasts, snapped her pyjama string, and attempted to drag her beneath a culvert. The HC reasoned that these acts were mere “preparation” rather than an “attempt to rape,” which requires a “greater degree of determination”. Instead, the court reduced the charges to aggravated sexual assault under Section 354B of the IPC and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act – a move that would significantly lessen potential punishment.
This logic sparked immediate backlash. Legal experts and activists argued that dragging a child to a secluded spot and physically violating her body demonstrates clear intent to commit rape, not just “preparation”. The HC’s emphasis on the absence of nudity or penetration ignored the psychological and physical trauma inflicted on the victim, reducing the crime to a checklist of technicalities rather than an act of violence.
The Supreme Court’s Rebuke
The SC’s suo moto intervention on March 26, 2025, labeled the HC’s observations as “totally insensitive, inhuman, and unknown to the tenets of law”. Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih highlighted the HC’s “complete lack of sensitivity,” particularly because the judgment was delivered four months after reserving the verdict—indicating deliberate, yet flawed, reasoning. The SC stayed specific paragraphs (21, 24, 26) of the HC order, calling them “shocking” and antithetical to legal principles.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta echoed this sentiment, stating the HC’s ruling warranted “serious exception”. The SC’s decision to involve the Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC and issue notices to the Uttar Pradesh government reflects its urgency to rectify systemic insensitivity.
Societal and Legal Implications
The HC’s ruling exposes a dangerous precedent: if acts like groping or disrobing are dismissed as non-serious offenses, survivors may hesitate to report assaults, fearing invalidation of their trauma. Union Minister Annapurna Devi rightly condemned the judgment as “wrong” and warned it would “send a wrong message to society”. The SC’s intervention, however, reaffirms that intent must be interpreted through the lens of the survivor’s experience, not abstract legal thresholds.
This case also highlights gaps in judicial training. As Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued, dragging a victim to a secluded spot and partial disrobing are clear indicators of intent to rape, not mere preparation. Judges must recognize that sexual violence is a spectrum, and dismissing early stages of assault undermines the severity of crimes under laws like POCSO, designed to protect children.
A Call for Empathy in Justice
The SC’s stay order is a vital correction, but the controversy demands broader reforms. Judicial education on gender sensitivity, coupled with stricter accountability for rulings that perpetuate victim-blaming, is essential. As the SC noted, the HC’s reasoning “depicts a total lack of sensitivity” – a flaw that cannot be tolerated in a justice system meant to protect the vulnerable.
This case is a reminder: the law must evolve to reflect the realities of survivors, not archaic interpretations of intent. Only then can India’s courts truly deliver justice.
