SC asks attorney general’s view on HC order asking ‘molester’ to get rakhi tied by complainant
Judiciary

SC asks attorney general’s view on HC order asking ‘molester’ to get rakhi tied by complainant

9 women lawyers have filed a plea to set aside a Madhya Pradesh HC order granting bail to an accused on the condition that he requests the complainant to tie him a rakhi. 

   
Supreme Court

File image of the Supreme Court of India | Photo: Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal’s assistance in a plea filed by nine women lawyers to set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order granting bail to an accused in a molestation case on the condition that he requests the complainant to tie him a rakhi.

A bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar agreed to hold a detailed hearing in the matter after senior advocate Sanjay Parekh, representing the nine lawyers, said the high court’s “weird” bail order had trivialised the offence of molestation.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had on 30 July granted bail to the accused, with the condition that he and his wife shall visit the complainant’s house with a rakhi on 3 August and a box of sweets. The court had also asked the accused to give Rs 11,000 to the complainant as a “customary ritual”, usually offered by the brothers to sisters on rakhi and also seek her blessings.

He was asked to further promise the complainant that he would “protect her to the best of his ability for all times to come”.

Parekh told the court that the high court’s order was a gross trivialisation of the trauma suffered by the complainant, and claimed that the “extraordinary” situation has pushed the women lawyers to approach the top court.

He urged the bench to lay down guidelines for high courts and trial courts so that they are refrained from stipulating “weird” bail conditions.

The bench later issued notice to the Attorney General’s office, while fixing 2 November to hear the matter again.


Also read: Witch-hunting still active, says HC as it denies bail to men who ‘killed’ woman with trident


‘HC order will deter people from filing complaints’

The petitioners — Aparna Bhat, G.S. Veena, Kanaka Latha Olavatth, Susan Verita D’Silva, Lakshmi N.B., Lalita Sivaraman Iyer, Rama Ramachandra Iyer, Susmita Durg and Meenakshi K.C. — introduced themselves as “women who have confronted being objectified as young girls and women who have raised their voices against their own and others'” abuse at various times.

Their background is expected to be weighed in by the court when it considers the petitioners’ locus standi in the case. Under the criminal law, a third party — not related to the case — cannot file an appeal against an order. Only an aggrieved person can approach the court.

To buttress their claim, the petitioners said they are also mothers of teenage girls, and have shared their experiences about the manner in which they have been treated by numerous men during the course of their academic and professional lives.

The petition, they stated, is an attempt by them to bring forth the trivialisation of sexual offences by the courts by making observations that are prejudicial and confirming the “inherent bias” against women who have faced sexual assault.

“If social stigma and the vagaries of the criminal judicial system are not enough, the observations such as the one made in the present case by the high court will prove to further deter people from filing complaints,” submitted their petition.

Such “regressive” directions tend to undo what women’s movement has gained over the years, said the petitioners.

‘HC facilitated a compromise, victim likely to turn hostile’

The petitioners also claimed that most cases of sexual assault end up in acquittal because the survivors turn hostile, either due to intimidation or inducement by families of the accused.

They also fear that the high court’s direction, which virtually facilitated a compromise, could end up with the complainant turning hostile during the trial. Furthermore, such an order also completely negates the very basis of the prosecution, which included wrongful entry to the property of the victim.

“The high court ought to have been cognizant and sensitive to the fact that in a case involving a sexual offence having been committed against a woman, it is immeasurably difficult for the survivor to lodge an FIR and pursue a criminal case against the accused at the threshold,” submitted the women lawyers, demanding a set of guidelines for the courts.


Also read: Law student who accused ex-Union minister Chinmayanand of rape disowns statement