Kashish Jain
Supreme Court scrapped Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in a case of Sexual Assault. The Apex Court was hearing a petition from 9 lawyers. The Court has ordered that in such cases, stereotypes much be avoided at all costs. The Bench also issued directions that need to be followed by the lower courts while dealing with crimes related to women.
The Bench comprised of Justices AM Khanwilkar and S Ravindra Bhat. The petition was in question was brought forth by Supreme Court Advocate Aparna Bhat and eight other lawyers. The plea put forth by them contended that such judgments will end up normalizing and trivializing such heinous offenses.
The petition also cites orders from other High Courts that highlight the non-empathetic approach of the judges, particularly while dealing with cases of sexual violence.
The Supreme Court had issued notice to Attorney General KK Venugopal to elicit his views. He had filed detailed written submissions on steps that should be considered to rectify such lack of empathy. He had also made a submission that stated that judges that are ‘old-school’ and ‘patriarchal’ should undergo sensitization to prevent them from objectifying women in such cases.
Most Importantly, Attorney Venugopal suggested that the Courts stop suggesting compromise between the accused and the victims.
Madhya Pradesh High Court had ordered the accused to get a Rakhi tied by the victim. The accused had sexually assaulted the woman.
The petitioners challenged the condition of the bail, rightfully contending that the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reduces women to mere objects.
Vikram Bagri was in jail on charges of assaulting a neighbor when he filed a bail petition in Indore. Within a relatively short period, the High Court in question granted conditional bail to him. One of the conditions was that the accused should approach the victim on Rakshabandhan and get a rakhi tied by her. The accused was also to ‘pledge’ to protect the woman as a brother, give her a sum of Rs. 11,000 and map another Rs. 5,000 to the victim’s son for clothes and sweets. The High Court had also demanded that the event be photographed and proof be submitted in the registry