Patna High Court verdict on attempted rape reignites debate, activists push for judicial training

The debate over how courts interpret sexual offenses has intensified following the Patna High Court’s pronouncement in the attempted rape case, with women’s rights activists and a lawyer stressing that judicial reasoning must be guided by the law, constitutional values ​​and the dignity of survivors.

Also read | Explained: Rape and Sex Crime Laws

The remarks came after the Patna High Court ruled that an attempt to remove a woman’s salwar and press her breasts did not amount to attempted rape, according to media reports.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s observations and said it would issue a detailed order on the matter.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed serious concern over the “lack of thorough research” before such judgments were passed.

Speaking to PTI, women’s rights activist Yogita Bhayana termed the Patna High Court’s observations as “very insensitive” and alleged that many of these judges have a patriarchal mindset and are insensitive towards women.

“They (judges) are also male chauvinists. They have a very patriarchal mindset and are very insensitive to women themselves,” she said, adding that “just because someone becomes a judge does not mean they are gender sensitive or gender neutral.”

Ms. Bhayana said judges should undergo mandatory gender sensitization and legal training at all levels of the judiciary, adding that such programs have been conducted for the police, schools and businesses, but not for judges.

“Judges must be taught… We must educate those who decide the laws. How else can you expect justice from such people?” she said.

She also expressed concern about such sightings, saying they could discourage survivors from reporting crimes and seeking justice.

“Survivors first fight society and even their own families before reaching the police… But if judges make such absurd observations, who will have the courage to report these crimes?” she said.

Referring to the oversight committee’s intervention, Ms. Bhayana said mere expressions of concern will not help and urged the judges to undergo training.

“Similar concerns were also raised about the Allahabad High Court’s comments. But someone has to bring about a change. Send judges for training. That’s what needs to be done,” she said.

Archana Agnihotri, founder and director of NGO Samadhan Abhiyan, told PTI that judges handling sex offense cases need proper orientation and a good understanding of the law, describing the Patna High Court’s observation as “shocking”.

“The law is very clear… They don’t even read the law. And even though they’re judges, they make statements like that. It’s embarrassing,” she said, adding that judges “need proper orientation on sexual offense issues because they have no idea what they’re talking about.”

Referring to the legal interpretation of sexual offences, Ms Agnihotri said the law was “written in black and white” and claimed judges were not applying it correctly.

“All judges should be tested on their knowledge of the law before they pass any sentence. That should be the rule,” she said.

Ms. Agnihotri said such observations could undermine confidence in the justice system, not just among survivors but among women in general.

“Tomorrow, if something happens to me, these are the kinds of judges who will decide my case. Where will I get justice? It’s demoralizing for all the weaker sections, not just women,” she said.

“Judges should pass an exam on the relevant law before passing judgment. If they don’t pass that exam, they should not be allowed to decide such cases, not at all costs,” she said.

Women’s rights activist Shobha Vijender said there is a legal definition of rape and that cases that fall under her purview should be dealt with accordingly.

“There is a legal definition of rape… anything that falls within the legal boundaries should be considered rape. Anything that does not meet the legal definition is clearly not rape,” Ms Vijender said.

But she said such sightings lowered society’s morale and created the impression that “only penetration matters” while overlooking attempted rape, harassment and its impact on survivors.

“They don’t think about the attempts, the harassment or the emotional and physical impact on the woman. Such incidents affect her deeply, not just at that moment but throughout her life,” Ms Vijender said.

Ms. Vijender said that the law itself is clear and does not contain any ambiguities.

“The law is very clear. There is no loophole in it. The law explains what rape is, what penetration means and what other acts it covers. If a case falls within that legal definition, then it is rape. It cannot depend on what you, I or any third party thinks,” she said.

She said judges should show more sensitivity in making such observations because people viewed the judiciary as an institution that would ultimately deliver justice.

“We have always believed that the judiciary is the last pedestal where survivors get justice and sensitivity. These kinds of statements affect the entire fabric of society. They hurt the emotional needs of survivors… Dignity is at the core of every individual and I feel that such observations cut right to that core,” Ms Vijender said.

Senior advocate Karuna Nundy said the Patna High Court had ignored a recent Supreme Court judgment delivered in February involving “almost identical” facts.

“The Patna High Court in its decision ignored a very recent Supreme Court judgment delivered in February where the relevant facts were almost identical. In this case too the accused had untied the victim’s salwar and attempted to rape her and the High Court ruled it as a case of attempted rape,” she said.

Ms Nundy said that even if the High Court thought the facts were distinguishable, it should have looked at the High Court’s decision.

“As the Chief Justice quite rightly pointed out, further inquiry should have been done. Even if the High Court felt that the situation was different from what the Supreme Court had decided, it should have looked into the difference in the judgment. The Patna judgment did not even mention the previous judgment of the Supreme Court,” she said.

“Judges come from society, but we have to make sure they don’t perpetuate society’s power structures and prejudices,” she said.

Ms. Nundy called for greater scrutiny in the appointment of judges: “Judges must be recruited and managed very rigorously to uphold constitutional values ​​so that they can correct the principle of ‘might is right’ crime. Otherwise, a second layer of injustice will be added to the crime against every victim.”