THE Supreme Court on Wednesday took a strong exception to the Allahabad High Court’s recent views that mere grabbing of a woman’s breasts and pulling drawstrings of her “pyjama” wasn’t rape, and stayed the observations, outlining total “insensitivity” and “inhuman approach”. Calling it a “very serious matter”, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih said, “In normal circumstances, we are slow in granting stay at this stage. But since the observations in paragraphs 21, 24 and 26 are totally unknown to canons of law and depict total insensitive and inhuman approach, we are inclined to stay the said observations.” The top court had taken a suo motu cognisance of the matter after the contentious observations of the High Court were brought to the notice of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna by “We the Women of India” collective.

 

The staying of the High Court’s controversial observations made in a March 17 verdict would mean that they cannot be used in any judicial proceedings for seeking relief by the present set of accused or others. The High Court’s verdict had come on a plea by two persons challenging a trial court’s order summoning them for the alleged offence of attempt to rape a minor. The verdict had held that the attempt to rape offence was not made out against the accused. The High Court had held they were liable to be summoned for the lesser offence of assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe her. 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 have perused the order (of the high court). We are at pains to say that some of the observations made in the impugned order and particularly in paragraphs 21, 24 and 26 depicts a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgement,” the bench said. The apex court said it was not as if that the verdict was dictated at the spur of the moment in the court itself.

 

The High Court had reserved its verdict in the matter in November last year and after almost four months, the judgement was pronounced, it added. The bench said it was clear that the judge had authored the verdict after application of mind. The top court 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.