'If it is not reversed, it will set a dangerous precedent.'
On March 17, the Allahabad high court, in a ruling delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, watered down the charges against the accused in an attempted rape case involving a minor.
The court held that actions such as grabbing the victim's breast and breaking the string of her pyjama amounted to 'aggravated sexual assault' rather than an 'attempt to rape.'
This judgment has sparked widespread outrage, with legal experts and activists warning that it could set a dangerous precedent by diluting protections for minors under India's sexual assault laws.
Recognising the severity of the issue, the Supreme Court of India has taken suo moto cognisance of the ruling, signaling its intent to review the decision and ensure that justice is served in accordance with the law's spirit.
This intervention underlines the judiciary's responsibility in maintaining the integrity of laws designed to protect survivors of sexual violence.
In this interview with Rediff.com's Prasanna D Zore, former additional solicitor general Dr Pinky Anand, discusses the implications of the high court's ruling, the legal loopholes it may create, and the broader impact on the confidence of survivors in the justice system.
The Allahabad high court ruling stated that actions like grabbing a minor's breast and breaking the string of her pyjama amount to 'aggravated sexual assault' rather than an attempt to rape.
Do you believe this interpretation aligns with the intent of India's sexual assault laws, particularly the POCSO Act?
I think it completely contradicts the ethos of the law as it stands, as well as the reason for its amendment. The interpretation of the law has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court.
The court emphasised the distinction between preparation and attempt in sexual offences.
In your view, does this delineation protect victims adequately, or does it create legal loopholes that could be exploited by perpetrators of such sexual offences?
It does create legal loopholes. In this case, the test is ultimately whether a person has done everything necessary to commit the act of penetration but was interrupted. The culprits were interrupted by passersby and who then fled the scene. It's like loading a gun, pointing it, and ultimately not being able to shoot because someone intervened.
The perpetrator had already done everything required to commit the crime. Therefore, in this case, the attempt is absolutely clear. Attempt means doing everything necessary for that purpose.
Attempt and intention...
The intention is also apparent. There can hardly be a stronger case of attempt in a sexual offence. This should categorically fall under the category of attempt to rape.
We have always been concerned about the dilution of offences, and this is one such instance.
How might this judgment impact the confidence of sexual assault survivors, particularly minors, in seeking justice when the severity of charges is reduced?
My belief is that criminal law is meant to give confidence to victims. While it may not repair what has happened, it ensures that similar offences are prevented in the future. It deters not just the same offender but also others. It provides solace to victims by ensuring justice.
Justice is not only for the victim but also for the State, which represents society as a whole.
How important is it for the judiciary to consider the psychological and emotional trauma inflicted on victims, particularly minors?
It is absolutely imperative today. Mental health has taken centre stage and is just as important as physical harm. Courts must recognise this. In fact, when we introduced victim compensation guidelines in the Supreme Court, mental trauma and harassment were considered in addition to penalties and punishments.
There has been widespread public outrage over this ruling, first from the public and then from the political class.
In your experience, how does public opinion influence legal reforms in cases of sexual offences?
Public opinion plays a significant role. The Nirbhaya case, for example, led to widespread legal reforms after mass protests at India Gate. While some delays in the system hinder change, public pressure can definitely act as a catalyst for legal and judicial reform.
Do you see this ruling setting a precedent that could weaken protections for minors?
I'm certain this ruling by the Allahabad high court will be reversed.
And if it is not reversed, what could be the potential ramifications for the prosecution of sexual offences in India?
If it is not reversed, it will set a dangerous precedent. We follow a common law system, meaning that judgments shape future legal interpretations.
Would it embolden potential criminals?
Absolutely. It would embolden perpetrators, making them feel that they can commit such acts and get away with them, which is a significant problem in cases of sexual assault.
Should there be mandatory sensitisation and training for judges handling sexual crime cases, especially those involving minors? How effective would such training be in preventing judgments that appear to trivialise serious offences?
I strongly support this. When the infamous 'skin-to-skin' judgment came out, the Supreme Court reversed it. Training judges is essential.
I generally believe judges are sensitive to these matters, so I am surprised that such a ruling (where Allahabad high court Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra ruled that grabbing a girl's breasts, breaking pyjama strings 'is no attempt to rape') was issued in this case. That is why there has been nationwide outrage.
Given this judgment, do you think there is a need for legislative amendments to provide clearer definitions of what constitutes attempt to rape versus aggravated sexual assault?
It could certainly help.
What legal mechanisms exist or should exist to ensure accountability for judicial decisions?
This is a complex issue. Currently, there is little direct accountability for judges except for the possibility of their rulings being overturned. Judges are protected by Constitutional provisions. However, public scrutiny serves as an important accountability mechanism. Today, the public acts as a watchdog, and that is a significant form of accountability.
What legal remedies are available to challenge this judgment? How can the Supreme Court ensure consistency and justice in sexual offence cases?
Article 142 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to establish binding law. I strongly believe that institutional accountability must be established. Accountability measures have been introduced in other areas of law, such as food and supplies regulations. If officials fail to act, there must be consequences. Similarly, the police system must also be held accountable.
Judicial accountability is a more complex issue due to Constitutional protections. However, we need to have broader discussions about judicial responsibility. At the very least, a wider consultation is required to assess what is happening in the country and to determine the best course of action moving forward.
Editorial Note: Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to ensure complete justice in any case before it. This provision grants the court extraordinary powers to override procedural constraints and legal gaps to deliver justice.
Complete Justice: The Supreme Court can issue directives or orders that may go beyond existing laws to achieve justice.
Binding Authority: The orders under Article 142 are binding on all courts and authorities across India.
Broad Applicability: It has been used in landmark cases, including those related to environmental protection, human rights, and criminal justice reforms.
In cases involving sexual offences, Article 142 could be used to rectify inconsistencies in lower court rulings, ensuring justice for victims.
© 2025