‘Observations reflected total insensitivity and inhuman approach’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the Allahabad High Court’s recent observations on grabbing of a woman’s breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her ‘pyjama’ not amounting to an attempt to rape and said it reflected total “insensitivity” and “inhuman approach”.
Taking a strong exception to the High Court’s observations made in its March 17 verdict, the apex court termed it a “very serious matter”.
“In normal circumstances, we are slow in granting stay at this stage. But since the observations appearing in paragraphs 21, 24 and 26 are totally unknown to the cannons of law and depict total insensitive and inhuman approach, we are inclined to stay the said observations,” a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih said.
The top court took suo motu cognisance of the matter after We the Women of India collective wrote to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
“Until further orders, there shall be stay to the observations made by the judge in paragraphs 21, 24 and 26 of the order dated March 17, 2025,” the bench held.
The staying of the High Court’s observations would mean the same cannot be used in any judicial proceeding to seek relief by the present set of accused or others.
The High Court’s verdict held that the attempt to rape offence was not made out against the accused and they were liable to be summoned for the lesser offence of assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe her.
“There is no allegation that the accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim,” the HC further said.
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also said, “On facts of the case a prima facie charge attempt to rape is not made out against the accused Pawan and Akash and instead they are liable to be summoned for a minor charge of Section 354(b) IPC, i.e., assault or abuse a woman with intent to disrobing or compelling her to be naked….”
Referring to the High Court’s observations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “This is one judgement I take a very serious exception.”
Attorney General R Venkataramani also appeared in the matter. “It is a very serious matter,” Justice Gavai said, “exhibiting total insensitiveness on the part of the judge.”
The bench added, “We are sorry to use such harsh words against the judge.”
Mehta said the Chief Justice of the High Court was the master of the roster there and it was advisable that some steps were taken.
“We are at pains to say that some of the observations made in the impugned order and particularly in paragraphs 21, 24 and 26 depict a total lack of insensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment,” the bench said.
The top court said it was not as if the judgment was dictated in the spur of the moment in the court.
It noted the High Court had reserved its verdict on November 13, 2024, and after almost four months, the judgment was pronounced.
“It is thus clear that the judge has authored the judgment after due application of mind,” it said.
The top court issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and the parties before the High Court in the matter seeking their responses in the suo motu proceeding.
