The Supreme Court must be credited for doing the due i.e., taking suo motu cognisance of Allahabad High Court’s decision ordering a POCSO court to alter the offence of rape in a case into that of “assaulting or abusing with an intent to disrobe or compel her to be naked”. The offence of rape in India has gendered overtones and is surrounded by profound taboo. Formulation of stricter laws over the past decade have, to a great extent, forced judges to set a high threshold—mostly incongruent and unjustified—for punishing persons under rape laws. This, however, is just one factor. Other factors including regressive mindsets and paternal bias etched in the Indian psyche can not be written off under any circumstance.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that grabbing a girl’s breasts, pulling the strings of her pyjamas, and attempting to drag her under a culvert did not amount to attempted rape. This decision appears to minimise the severity of sexual violence and sets a dangerous precedent. Attempted rape should not just be about physical penetration; it should also be about intent, coercion, and the use of force to violate an individual’s bodily autonomy. The High Court’s narrow interpretation dilutes the seriousness of the crime and risks letting perpetrators escape with lighter punishments due to legal technicalities.
This is not an isolated case. Indian courts have repeatedly issued rulings that trivialise sexual violence and reinforce patriarchal biases—only to be corrected subsequently. But the errors themselves are a sign of deep-rooted paternal bias. The trauma inflicted on survivors should not be measured by the extent of the act but by the intent and aggression involved. Courts must recognise this and ensure that judgments reflect the gravity of such crimes. The Supreme Court’s intervention was indeed necessary to restore public confidence in the judiciary regarding such cases. Every judgment that downplays sexual violence normalises crimes against women and children. In a country where, according to NCRB data, an estimated 51 crimes against women occur every hour, the judiciary cannot afford to be lenient and trivial in its approach. It may be recalled that in 2021, the Supreme Court had emphasised that judges must avoid language and reasoning that trivialise sexual violence. The court also mandated gender sensitisation training for judges, but the Allahabad High Court’s ruling shows that effectiveness of such training is still lacking. The burden should not be on victims to prove how much violence was inflicted before the law takes them seriously. The judiciary must acknowledge the complexity of sexual violence and recognise that an “attempt” does not have to reach its final stage to be legally significant.
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to redefine how attempted rape is understood in Indian law. The court should ensure that legal interpretations prioritise survivors rather than protect perpetrators under the garb of technicalities. Additionally, it must enforce gender sensitisation directives and hold judges accountable for rulings that reflect regressive gender biases. The credibility of the judiciary depends on its ability to uphold the dignity and protection of survivors over leniency for offenders. The outrage over the Allahabad High Court’s ruling is justified, but outrage alone is not enough. Much more needs to be done.