"There Is Now Another Order Passed By Another Judge”: Supreme Court Adjourns Suo Motu Case On Allahabad High Court Order On Sexual Assault Case
The Allahabad High Court had ruled that the mere act of grabbing the breast and pulling the pyjama string does not constitute the offence of rape or attempted rape but falls within the ambit of assault or use of criminal force with the intent to disrobe a woman.
The Supreme Court today adjourned the suo motu case over the Allahabad High Court’s controversial observations, listing it after four weeks as service is awaited. The High Court had held that grabbing the breast and pulling the pyjama string amounts to assault with intent to disrobe, not rape or attempted rape.
While adjourning the matter, a Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih remarked, "There is now another order passed by another judge from the same High Court…"
The Bench added, "Grant bail if they have to, but what are these observations that 'she invited trouble for herself'… and all that?"
At this point, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta intervened, stating that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. He said, “Justice should not only be done but seen to be done…what a common man perceives such observations to be…a person who is not conversant with the legal nuances how would he perceive…?’
On March 26, the Apex Court stayed the Allahabad High Court order, which said grabbing breasts and pulling the drawstring of a woman's "pyjama" or lowers did not amount to the offence of attempt to rape, and said it reflected total "insensitivity" and "inhuman approach".
The Apex Court had taken a suo motu cognizance of the matter after it was brought to the notice of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
On April 9, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the registry of the Allahabad High Court to redact the name of the complainant's mother from the records in a case involving an alleged attempt to rape, where the High Court had made controversial observations on March 17, 2025. A separate plea had been filed by the civil society network Just Rights for Children Alliance along with the survivor’s mother, challenging the High Court's order.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate H S Phoolka, appearing for the Petitioners, urged the Court to tag this plea with the ongoing suo motu proceedings scheduled for April 15. “The High Court has mentioned the name of the victim's mother, who is the complainant, and there are number of orders of this court that the name should be redacted,” Phoolka had submitted.
Taking note of the submission, the Bench directed that the plea would be heard along with the suo motu matter and, in the interim, ordered the registry of the High Court to ensure the complainant's mother’s name was redacted from all records.
Background
On March 26, the Apex Court took a strong exception to the High Court's observations and called 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," it had said.
The Apex Court added, "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 Court had also issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and the parties before the High Court in the matter seeking their responses in the suo motu proceeding. The stay of the High Court's observations meant the same could not be used in any judicial proceeding for seeking reliefs by the present set of accused or others. The High Court's order 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 a woman with intent to disrobe her.
High Court judge Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra 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...."
The High Court's order had come on a petition by the accused challenging the order of a special judge in Kasganj through which they were summoned for the alleged offence under Section 376 (rape) of IPC among other sections. It came on record that an application was moved before the court of special judge, POCSO Act, alleging that on November 10, 2021, the complainant was returning from her relative's home along with her 14-year-old daughter.
It was alleged that Pawan, Akash, and Ashok, who hailed from the same village, met her on the way and offered a lift to her daughter. They allegedly stopped their motorbike on the way to her village and grabbed her breasts. Akash was accused of dragging her and trying to take her beneath the culvert while pulling the drawstrings of her lowers. The High Court said the alleged actions of the accused men were "not sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons had determined to commit rape" on the survivor as "apart from these facts no other act was attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim."
Cause Title: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues (SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025)
