The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed sharp disapproval of an Allahabad High Court order that granted bail to a rape accused and controversially stated that the complainant “herself invited trouble.”
A bench led by Justice BR Gavai called the observations “highly insensitive”, reflecting growing judicial concern over casual and regressive remarks in sexual assault cases.
🔍 What Did the High Court Say?
In granting bail to the accused, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted that the victim—a postgraduate student—had agreed to go to the accused’s house after consuming alcohol, suggesting she was “competent enough to understand the morality and significance of her act.”
The remarks triggered widespread outrage and came just days after the Supreme Court intervened to stay another “inhuman and insensitive” order from the same court in a separate attempt-to-rape case, where it was held that grabbing a woman’s breasts and pulling her pyjamas did not constitute an attempt to rape.
Supreme Court’s Response:
-
Justice Gavai questioned the moral commentary:
“Yes, bail can be granted, but what is this discussion that she herself invited trouble? One has to be careful when saying such things, especially on this side.”
-
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added that such statements impact public trust in the judiciary:
“Complete justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done.”
-
The bench issued a stay on the high court’s observations, stating they cannot be used in any judicial proceedings to seek relief.
Related Case: Suo Motu Action by Supreme Court
-
On March 26, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of another judgment where the High Court downgraded an attempt to rape charge to intent to disrobe, triggering serious legal and ethical concerns.
-
The court stayed the paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 of the high court’s March 17 order, calling them alien to “the cannons of law.”
What Happens Next?
-
The current case will be heard again after four weeks.
-
The Centre, Uttar Pradesh government, and parties to the case have been issued notices to respond.
-
Concerns were also raised about the naming of the victim’s mother in the court order—something that goes against standard Supreme Court directives on protecting identities in sexual assault cases.
