Supreme Court takes cognisance of Allahabad HC ruling on attempt to rape, hearing today

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday initiated proceedings on its own motion (suo motu) against a controversial judgment delivered by the Allahabad high court on March 17 regarding what constitutes an attempt to rape. A bench comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai and AG Masih will hear the matter on Wednesday. The case has been formally titled: “In re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the high court of judicature at Allahabad in criminal revision no. 1449/2024 and ancillary issue”.

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna decided to initiate proceedings following a letter from senior advocate Shobha Gupta, who urged the CJI to take cognisance of the matter. In her letter, Gupta expressed grave concern over the judgment, stating: “The interpretation by the judge is grossly erroneous, his approach on the subject is insensitive, irresponsible, and sends a very bad message to society at large, which is already grappling with an ever-increasing number of sexual crimes against women of all ages.”

Gupta’s letter requested the CJI to take up the matter both on the administrative and judicial sides, and also urged that the judge responsible for the ruling be removed from the criminal roster with immediate effect, pending further orders.

Confirming the proceedings, an official report from the Supreme Court stated: “The Hon’ble Court has been pleased to direct the registration of a Suo Motu Writ Petition based on a letter dated 20.03.2025 sent by Ms Shobha Gupta, Sr. Advocate and Founder of ‘We the Women of India’.”

On March 21, Union Minister for Women and Child Development Annapurna Devi also urged the Supreme Court to intervene, condemning the Allahabad High Court’s ruling. Calling it unacceptable, she remarked that the decision “has no place in a civilised society.”

The judgment in question was delivered by justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra and sparked nationwide outrage. The controversy erupted on March 20, after justice Mishra ruled that a man grabbing a girl’s breasts, breaking the strings of her pyjama, and dragging her under a culvert were not sufficient grounds to charge him with attempted rape.

The ruling led to sharp criticism from multiple quarters. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi wrote separate letters to CJI Khanna and Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, calling for justice Mishra’s removal from office.

In her letter, shared on X (formerly Twitter), Chaturvedi expressed her outrage: “I firmly believe this is a flawed judgment delivered by a depraved judge. It is alarming that when 51 crimes against women occur every hour in the country, this is the level of commitment to women’s safety demonstrated by our judicial system.” She further demanded justice Mishra’s disqualification from judicial duties for delivering a “misguided” verdict, besides transfer of the case to the Supreme Court to ensure justice for the survivor and her family.

The case before the Allahabad high court involved a revision petition filed by two of the three accused, Pawan and Akash, who challenged an order passed by a Kasganj trial court summoning them under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other charges.

The incident occurred on November 10, 2021, when the three accused, Pawan, Akash and Ashok, allegedly sexually assaulted their 14-year-old neighbour. According to the prosecution, the accused offered the girl a ride home on their motorcycle, stopped the vehicle and began grabbing her breasts, dragged her under a culvert and broke the strings of her pyjama.

However, in its March 17 ruling, the Allahabad high court downgraded the charges, stating that the facts of the case did not meet the threshold for an attempt to rape. The court ruled that for an attempt to rape charge to stand, the prosecution must prove that the accused had gone beyond the stage of preparation towards committing the offence. “The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination,” it held.

Based on this reasoning, the high court ordered that the accused be tried instead under Section 354(B) of the IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Section 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act (aggravated sexual assault).

Notably, in a 2021 judgment, the top court handed out a checklist for the judges on what must be avoided during the judicial proceedings and could never become a part of an order, saying that use of reasoning or language which diminished the offence and trivialized the survivor had to be avoided under all circumstances.

That judgment regretted that behaviour such as stalking, eve-teasing, shades of verbal and physical assault, and harassment were categorised as ‘minor’ offences. “Such ‘minor’ crimes are, regrettably not only trivialised or normalized, rather they are even romanticised and therefore, invigorated in popular lore such as cinema. These attitudes – which indulgently view the crime through prisms such as ‘boys will be boys’ and condone them, nevertheless, have a lasting and pernicious effect on the survivors,” lamented the bench.

Furthermore, that judgment had ordered that a module on gender sensitisation be included as part of the foundational training of every judge, directing the National Judicial Academy is to devise the necessary inputs which have to be made part of the training of young judges, as well as form part of judges’ continuing education with respect to gender sensitisation.