In a series of interventions over the past month, the Supreme Court of India has called out the deeply entrenched gender prejudices within the judiciary, as exemplified by three highly troubling orders passed by the Allahabad High Court. These orders, now stayed or reversed by the apex court, demonstrate how judicial insensitivity, patriarchal reasoning, and disregard for victim-centric justice can end up reinforcing systemic oppression—particularly in cases involving sexual violence and trafficking of women and children.
Across these three cases—ranging from the grant of bail in a rape case involving an intoxicated college student, to the dilution of charges in a case of sexual assault against a minor, to the careless granting of bail in a child trafficking racket—the High Court’s orders have come under sharp scrutiny. The apex court has not merely disagreed with the legal reasoning offered, but has gone a step further to publicly chastise the judges involved for passing orders that reflect a “lack of sensitivity,” “misapplication of law,” and “casualness in handling crimes against the most vulnerable.”
At the heart of this moment lies a much-needed reckoning with the gendered biases and prejudices that continue to shape how courts interpret the law. These cases have also reignited the debate on judicial accountability, particularly around how courts often reproduce social hierarchies and fail to protect those most in need of their constitutional mandate. The Supreme Court’s recent responses mark a significant intervention, one that reasserts the need for justice systems to be empathetic, victim-centric, and alive to the unequal social realities within which violence and exploitation occur.
- Victim-blaming in a rape case involving an intoxicated college student
In one instance, the Supreme Court criticised Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court for observations made while granting bail to a man accused of raping a college student. The High Court, in a shockingly regressive comment, held that the woman “invited trouble” and was herself “responsible” for the alleged sexual assault. The victim, who had met the accused at a bar in Delhi, claimed she was intoxicated and had accompanied the man to rest at his house but was instead taken to a relative’s flat and raped.
Justice Singh dismissed her allegations by pointing to her torn hymen—while also noting the medical report didn’t explicitly state sexual assault—and further added that as an MA student, the woman should have understood the “morality and significance of her act.” These remarks sparked immediate outrage for their blatant victim-blaming and for perpetuating rape myths that have no place in judicial reasoning. The Supreme Court firmly stated that while the granting of bail lies within judicial discretion, such gratuitous and damaging observations against the complainant are wholly unwarranted and erode public trust in the justice system. As per LiveLaw, Justice BR Gavai expressed his displeasure at such comments being made, and remarked, “What is this discussion that ‘she invited trouble’? Judges must be more careful, especially when it comes to such cases.”
- Diluting sexual offences against a minor
In a second and even more alarming case, the Supreme Court took suo-motu cognisance of another order by the Allahabad High Court where it diluted the charges in a case involving the sexual assault of a child. The High Court had originally altered a lower court’s summoning order, replacing charges under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 18 of the POCSO Act (attempt to commit an offence) with lesser charges under Section 354-B IPC (assault with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra reasoned that although the accused had grabbed the child’s breasts and attempted to pull down her pyjamas before being stopped, such conduct did not indicate a “determination” to commit rape. This interpretation drew strong disapproval from the Supreme Court, which found the High Court’s minimisation of the assault deeply problematic. The apex court had earlier stayed this order, highlighted the disturbing lack of judicial sensitivity and asserted that the judgment did not appear to be a “spur of the moment” lapse but a serious judicial misstep. The matter was taken up after the women’s rights group We the Women of India flagged the order, prompting the Supreme Court to seek responses from the Union and the Uttar Pradesh governments.
- Bail granted in child trafficking case without due diligence
In a separate matter involving child trafficking, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the Allahabad High Court once again, this time for granting bail in a child trafficking case in a casual and negligent manner. The apex court found that the High Court failed to impose even basic conditions on the accused, such as requiring them to mark their presence at police stations. As a result, many of the accused absconded, severely compromising the investigation and posing a grave risk to society.
The case involved the trafficking of a new-born, who was sold for ₹4 lakh to a couple desperate for a male child. The Supreme Court ordered the immediate surrender of all accused and cancellation of bail, directed the appointment of special public prosecutors, and mandated the trial to proceed on a day-to-day basis, with a timeline of six months for conclusion. The Bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, also issued far-reaching directives to all States and High Courts to expedite child trafficking trials and take punitive action against hospitals involved in such crimes.
The Court’s disappointment was palpable: “We are thoroughly disappointed with how the State of UP handled this. There was no seriousness worth the name,” it observed, as per BarandBench. Taking cognisance of a Times of India report, the Court also directed the police to report on steps taken to dismantle trafficking gangs.
A Larger Pattern: Biases in the judiciary
These three cases are not isolated judicial lapses. They reflect a larger, structural pattern of gender bias, moralism, and caste–class insensitivity within sections of the judiciary. Whether it is disbelieving women who speak up about sexual violence, minimising the trauma of minors, or failing to acknowledge the societal menace of child trafficking, the judiciary has often been found wanting.
When High Court judges pass orders that reinforce patriarchal tropes—by blaming victims for their clothing, choices, or social behaviour—they not only fail in their legal duty, they do serious harm to the broader struggle for gender justice and equality. Judicial commentary, especially in bail orders, has a real and chilling effect: it silences survivors, deters reporting, and normalises impunity for perpetrators.
The Supreme Court’s recent interventions are therefore significant not only because they correct individual injustices but because they send a strong message to the judiciary. They reaffirm that judicial reasoning must be guided by constitutional morality, not personal prejudices; that courts must be spaces of redress and empathy, not shame and suspicion.
A call for structural reform and judicial sensitisation
These cases point to an urgent need for systemic reform within the judiciary. Mandatory gender sensitisation training for judges, stricter accountability for prejudicial orders, and mechanisms for survivor feedback must form part of the legal reform agenda. Additionally, there must be structural checks on moralistic and casteist reasoning that creeps into court judgments.
The Supreme Court, by publicly pulling up the Allahabad High Court, has sent a rare but powerful message—that justice must not only be done but must be done with sensitivity, dignity, and constitutional fidelity.
Related:
Removing Hijab ban is a step forward, for gender justice & pluralism