The Allahabad High Court has sparked fresh controversy by granting bail to a man accused of raping a postgraduate student, with observations that have raised serious concerns about victim-blaming and the judiciary's approach to sexual violence. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, while delivering the order, stated that the woman “herself invited trouble” and was also “responsible” for the incident — a remark that has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, activists, and the broader public.
The case pertains to a September 2024 incident in Delhi, where the complainant, a student at a Noida-based university, alleged she was raped after a night out with friends. According to her complaint, she had consumed alcohol until 3 am at a bar in Hauz Khas and was persuaded by the accused to accompany him to his residence. Instead of taking her to his stated home in Noida, the accused reportedly diverted to a relative’s flat in Gurgaon, where he allegedly raped her. She filed a police complaint, leading to the accused’s arrest in December 2024.
In his bail plea, the accused claimed the act was consensual and that the woman had willingly accompanied him. The High Court, accepting the plea, granted him bail and made controversial remarks suggesting that the survivor, being a postgraduate student, was mature enough to know the implications of her actions.
The language used by the court—implying that the complainant bore partial responsibility for what happened—has been widely condemned. Critics argue that such statements perpetuate regressive narratives around consent and contribute to a legal atmosphere that can discourage survivors from coming forward.
This ruling follows closely on the heels of another contentious judgment from the same court, which the Supreme Court recently stayed. In that case, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that acts such as groping a minor girl, breaking the string of her pajama, and attempting to drag her away did not constitute rape or attempted rape but instead amounted to “aggravated sexual assault.” The incident involved a minor, aged around 11 or 12, and had provoked widespread public outcry.
Legal experts and rights groups have voiced concern that such judgments risk diluting the seriousness of sexual offences and reflect a worrying trend of judicial insensitivity. The Supreme Court’s intervention in the earlier case signals its concern over the interpretation of laws meant to protect women and children from sexual violence.
The latest bail order adds to growing demands for judicial accountability and gender-sensitive training for members of the judiciary. Many activists argue that while courts have a duty to weigh evidence fairly, remarks that appear to shame or blame survivors set a dangerous precedent and erode trust in the justice system.
The developments have sparked renewed debate over the role of societal attitudes in shaping legal interpretations and underscore the urgent need for reforms to ensure survivor-centric justice in cases of sexual violence.
