A Press Conference was held today by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) at the Press Club of India, New Delhi on the recent trend of anti-women and anti-children judgments by the High Courts (See Annexure 1 on Speaker Quotes and Annexure 2 on a few examples of such judgments).
NFIW expresses distress and strongly condemns these judgments. Whether imposing conditions to marry the victim or failing to acknowledge sexual crimes in violation of existing laws such as POCSO Act, the courts have through these rulings not only exhibited deeply misogynist attitudes, but also deliberately ignored the immense work done by women’s movements across the country as well as the judicial system to recognize and criminalise many forms of violence inflicted on women and children, by way of legislation and amendments.
In a recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court, dated March 19, delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, it was stated that “grabbing the breast of a girl and breaking her pant string is not an attempt to rape, but an attempt to sexually molest.” The judgment came in the context of an incident in 2021 when an 11-year-old girl was attacked by two men in Kasganj area of Uttar Pradesh. They grabbed her breast, broke the string of her salwar, and tried to push her under a bridge. However, due to the timely intervention of some passers-by, the girl was rescued. A case was filed later by the girl’s mother, following which the accused approached the Allahabad High Court for relief.
In his interpretation of this incident, Justice Mishra, called it “preparation for the crime” and not “an actual attempt” and said that “we should understand the difference between the two.” By making such a distinction, he disregarded the vulnerability of the child and the impact of this act on her, and thus perpetuated the practice of belittling heinous acts of violence against children, in violation of Section 7 of the POCSO Act, under which “touching the sexual organs of a child or any act related to physical contact with sexual intentions will be considered sexual assault.” It must be noted here that only because the accused were stopped in time by people on the road, that they could not fully carry out their heinous intent.
Judgments such as these are a blatant rejection of the core tenets of the Constitution. They are a larger attempt to dilute and play down crimes against women and children, and thereby further institutionalise and legitimise patriarchal ideology that thrives by reducing women to mere objects to be used and abused.
NFIW demands immediate revocation of this anti-women and anti-Constitutional judgment as well as urgent removal of Justice Mishra who has demonstrated utter ignorance of existing legislations and has deplorably failed to uphold the Constitutional principles of equality and justice to which he as a judge is duty bound.
By taking these urgent actions, a strong precedent will be set for zero tolerance of these retrograde and regressive judgments that fuel violence and gender inequality.
We also demand that the Chief Justice of India must issue strict directions to all courts against such judgments and trends. Further, all such cases where principles of gender justice are violated must urgently be investigated, and punitive measures be taken on judges who perpetrate them, along with a mention in their record book; this is essential to deter crimes and judgments of this nature.
We also appeal for in-depth programmes on gender sensitisation for the judiciary.
Syeda Hameed
Nisha Sidhu
Annexure 1
Quotes from the Speakers
Press Conference held on March 26, 2025 at the Press Club of India, New Delhi
Syeda Hameed, President of NFIW said that, “as a women’s organization, that has been at the forefront of the women’s movement, we feel anger and pain that such shameful and humiliating judgments are coming from the courts that are supposed to grant justice.” Talking of the Allahabad judgment, she said, “if touching breasts and opening pant string is not an attempt to rape, then what is it? They have completely ignored and made a mockery of the POCSO Act and also ignored the struggles and gains of the women’s movement, including the women who drafted our Constitution. Do not let these regressive judgements take us back several decades.” She also urged the media persons to use their agency to spread this message as they have the power to take this to people at large.
Nisha Siddhu, General Secretary NFIW, said that, “judgments such as the Allahabad judgment have sent us back by ages and pushed us further to the margins. When the Constitution gives us the right to equality, who are the judges to violate that right. We shall not tolerate such attitudes and will be carrying out a campaign on judicial accountability on gender related matters. Such judgments should have severe consequences for the judges. They should be removed from their positions and their unjust decisions should be recorded in their ACR.”
Annie Raja, Vice-President, NFIW, said that, “the NCRB records show that there is an increase in crimes against women, not only in number but also the level of cruelty. Conviction rates are abysmally low and pendency rates are very high, and this trend, along with the recent judgments should be read as an attack on women by judiciary. This trend has worsened after the order of remission of the rapists of Bilkis Bano, which was given on the 75th anniversary of India’s independence. We demand that the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice should take note of this and send directions to all courts to be more sensitive and follow the law of the land. They are displaying ignorance of and violating the existing anti-rape law, especially the changes in definition after the Nirbhaya case. They are not eligible to sit in position as judges. We will not take this attack lightly and shall be taking up a national campaign on this issue to advance women’s right to dignity, equality and justice.”
Aruna Sinha, National Secretary, NFIW, said that, “along with Judiciary the police and all other constituents of the State that are supposed to deliver justice are displaying patriarchal attitudes, and therefore we are losing faith in them. Women are being treated as commodities and the judicial judgements reflect this deeply.”
Annexure 2
Below is a detailed discussion of High Court judgments in India seen as anti-women, with specific focus on cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Cases Involving Conditions of Marrying the Victim Under POCSO Act
The POCSO Act, enacted in 2012, defines any sexual act with a person under 18 as an offense, irrespective of consent or subsequent actions like marriage. However, some High Courts have interpreted cases involving “consensual” relationships or post-offense marriages leniently, imposing conditions like marrying the victim. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), which invalidated exceptions allowing sexual intercourse with minors in marriage, raising the age of consent to 18 universally.
These cases have often been criticized for undermining the intent of the POCSO Act, which aims to protect minors from sexual abuse, by suggesting that marriage can “resolve” the crime, thereby prioritizing societal norms over justice and the victim’s rights.
Imposing marriage as a condition in POCSO cases is seen as anti-women because it:
1. Undermines the victim’s autonomy by tying her future to her abuser.
2. Ignores the power imbalance and coercion inherent in such relationships.
3. Prioritizes societal harmony (e.g., avoiding “dishonor”) over justice, a patriarchal approach that disadvantages female victims.
While some High Courts, like Kerala in 2021 (ANI post, 2021-09-24), have ruled that marriage does not absolve POCSO offenses, others continue to exhibit inconsistency, as seen in Allahabad and Madras High Court cases, given below.
1. Allahabad High Court – Ajay Diwakar v. State of U.P. (2024)
Details: In this case, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused under the POCSO Act on the condition that he marry the minor victim. The accused had allegedly established a physical relationship with the victim, and the court noted that they had solemnized a marriage. The court presumed a physical relationship existed unless explicitly denied by the victim, and since the victim and accused were living as husband and wife, it treated the case leniently.
Criticism: This ruling was criticized for undermining the POCSO Act’s strict stance against sexual acts with minors, regardless of consent or subsequent marriage. The condition of marriage was seen as a way to legitimize the offense rather than punish it, effectively sidelining the victim’s rights and the legal framework designed to protect minors. Women’s activists argued that it perpetuated the notion that marriage can erase the crime, a stance that contradicts the Act’s purpose.
Impact: It sparked outrage on platforms like X, with users questioning the judiciary’s approach to gender justice and child protection (e.g., posts from October 2024 highlighted public anger). It raised concerns about judicial inconsistency in POCSO cases. Public sentiment expressed through online Posts (Such as @BhavikaKapoor5, 2024-10-16 on X) reflect growing frustration with such rulings, with users labeling them as shameful and questioning judicial logic that equates marriage with justice.
2. Karnataka High Court – Naveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2022)
Details: The accused, charged under POCSO for a relationship with a minor, sought to quash the FIR after marrying the victim with her family’s consent. The Karnataka High Court declined to quash the case entirely but granted bail, suggesting that the marriage could be a factor in reducing the severity of punishment if the accused ensured the victim’s welfare.
Criticism: It was argued that this approach diluted the gravity of the offense under POCSO, which is meant to be a non-negotiable law for protecting children. The condition implied that the victim’s future depended on the accused’s goodwill, a stance seen as anti-women and dismissive of the minor’s rights as a child rather than a wife.
The Karnataka High Court’s 2022 ruling (OpIndia post, 2022-10-30) that POCSO overrides personal laws (e.g., Muslim marriage customs) shows progressive intent, but bail conditions tied to marriage dilute this stance.
Impact: Reinforced concerns about courts using marriage as a “fix” for sexual offenses against minors, prompting calls for stricter adherence to POSCO guidelines.
3. Madras High Court – Vijayalakshmi v. State (2016)
Details: The Madras High Court quashed a POCSO case against a 22-year-old man accused of abducting and having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl. The court noted that the couple had married after the FIR was filed, and also had a child. It imposed a condition that the accused marry the victim formally and ensure her well-being, treating marriage as a mitigating factor.
Criticism: Legal experts and women’s rights groups condemned the judgment for prioritizing marital reconciliation over statutory rape provisions of POCSO, which do not recognize consent for minors under 18. The decision was seen as anti-women because it placed the burden on the minor victim to “normalize” the situation through marriage, ignoring her agency and the trauma of the offense.
Impact: This case set a precedent for later rulings where marriage was considered a solution, prompting debates about the misuse of judicial discretion in POCSO cases.
Additional Anti-Women High Court Judgments
1. Kerala High Court – Civic Chandran v. State of Kerala (2022)
Details: The Kozhikode Sessions Court (under Kerala High Court jurisdiction) granted anticipatory bail to Civic Chandran, accused of sexual harassment, noting that the complainant’s “provocative dressing” weakened the case under IPC Section 354A. The Kerala High Court did not immediately reverse this, allowing the bail to stand initially.
Criticism: The victim-blaming rhetoric was widely denounced as anti-women, reinforcing stereotypes that women invite harassment through their clothing. It shifted focus from the accused’s actions to the victim’s behaviour, undermining her dignity and legal protections.
Impact: The Kerala High Court later faced pressure to address such biases, but the case exemplified judicial tendencies to excuse male behaviour based on patriarchal assumptions.
2. Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) – Libnus v. State of Maharashtra (2021)
Details: Justice Pushpa Ganediwala ruled that groping a minor girl’s breast over her clothes did not constitute sexual assault under POCSO due to the lack of “skin-to-skin contact.” The accused was convicted under IPC Section 354 (outraging modesty) instead, with a lighter sentence.
Criticism: This technical interpretation was seen as anti-women and anti-child, trivializing the trauma of sexual assault. It suggested that the absence of direct physical contact lessened the offense, a stance that contradicted POCSO’s broad protective intent. The Supreme Court overturned this in November 2021, but the initial ruling highlighted judicial insensitivity.
Impact: Led to nationwide protests and Supreme Court guidelines emphasizing a victim-centric approach in sexual assault cases.
3. Madhya Pradesh High Court – Vikram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020)
Details: The court granted bail to an accused charged with outraging a woman’s modesty, requiring him to have the complainant tie a rakhi on him, symbolizing a sibling bond. This was not a POCSO case but reflects a similar pattern of imposing reconciliatory conditions.
Criticism: Seen as anti-women for trivializing the offense and imposing a culturally inappropriate resolution that ignored the victim’s trauma. The Supreme Court later, in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), banned such conditions, but the initial ruling reflected a regressive mindset.
Impact: Highlighted the need for judicial training on gender sensitivity and victim rights.
4. Punjab & Haryana High Court – Vikas Garg v. State of Haryana (2017)
Details: In a gang rape case, the court granted bail to the accused, citing the victim’s “promiscuous attitude” and suggesting her behavior contributed to the crime. This was not a POCSO case but involved a similar victim-blaming approach.
Criticism: The judgment was condemned for its anti-women stance, absolving the accused by questioning the victim’s character rather than their actions. It perpetuated the myth that women’s lifestyles justice violence, undermining legal protections.
Impact: Fuelled demands for judicial accountability and reforms to eliminate gender biases in rape cases.
