New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India set aside a controversial order of the Allahabad High Court, which had held that acts such as pulling the string of a minor’s pyjama and grabbing her did not amount to an attempt to rape.
The apex court stressed that cases involving sexual offences must be decided with both legal precision and empathy. It observed that courts must go beyond a purely technical interpretation of the law and also understand the vulnerability of victims.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria clearly stated, “We cannot agree with the finding of the High Court that the allegations only amount to preparation, but not an attempt, towards the commission of the offence of rape.”
The judgment, delivered on February 10, noted that justice would remain incomplete if courts failed to recognise the lived realities and vulnerabilities of victims. The court said that judicial decisions must reflect compassion and humanity, otherwise justice remains incomplete.
The controversial High Court order
The matter arose from a March 17, 2025, order passed by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court while modifying a summoning order against two accused, Pawan and Akash.
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly grabbed the breasts of an 11-year-old girl. One of them then broke the string of her lower garment and attempted to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing when passers-by intervened.
The trial court had treated the incident as an attempt to rape or attempted penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and summoned the accused under Section 376 of the IPC along with Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
However, the High Court altered the charges to Section 354-B IPC (assault with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, observing that the allegations did not establish a determined intent to commit rape. The High Court had held that the act could amount to “preparation” but not an “attempt.”
Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance
The Supreme Court later took suo motu cognisance of the High Court’s ruling in March 2025 and stayed its operation.
During the proceedings, the bench found the reasoning legally problematic, particularly in the manner the distinction between “preparation” and “attempt” had been applied. Senior advocates argued that such technical distinctions should not be applied mechanically without examining the factual matrix of the case.
The court acknowledged that provisions relating to aggravated sexual assault could be applicable, but held that the threshold for attempt to rape had been incorrectly interpreted by the High Court.
Call for judicial sensitivity
In its final verdict, the apex court emphasised the need for systemic correction within judicial processes.
“There is no doubt that some action is required to inculcate and nurture an inherent sensitivity and discernment into the approach of members of the judiciary,” the bench observed.
While refraining from framing guidelines itself, the court directed the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal to constitute an expert committee. The committee has been tasked with preparing draft guidelines aimed at promoting sensitivity and compassion in cases involving sexual offences and vulnerable victims. The report is expected within three months.
