Summary
The Supreme Court expunged a bail condition requiring an accused in a sexual-harassment case to visit the complainant, have a rakhi tied and make ritual payments. Such conditions trivialised the alleged offence and risked further trauma. Courts must avoid gender stereotypes, compelled contact, marriage proposals and compromise or mediation in such cases. The Court directed prompt notice of bail to complainants, consideration of protective measures, and gender-sensitisation training and examination content for judges, prosecutors and lawyers. The order addressed the conditions, without deciding the accused’s guilt.
Issues
- Whether a court could impose ritual reconciliation and contact with a sexual-offence complainant as bail conditions.
- What standards of language, protective conditions and judicial conduct should govern gender-related cases.
- What institutional training and educational measures were required.
Provisions considered
- Section 438(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Discretion to impose anticipatory-bail conditions must serve proper investigation or trial and cannot justify arbitrary conditions unrelated to those purposes or harmful to the complainant. (¶¶ 27, 33, 42-44)
Held
- Bail conditions must relate to the legitimate purposes of bail, investigation and trial. Converting the alleged harasser into a brother through a compelled ritual was unacceptable, diluted the alleged offence and exposed the complainant to further trauma. The challenged condition, including the ritual payments and related compliance, was set aside and expunged. (¶¶ 26-29, 33, 42, 51)
- In the sexual-offence context, bail conditions must not mandate, require or permit contact with the victim. Potential threats require separate consideration of appropriate protection after police reports, along with no-contact directions. The complainant must be informed immediately of the bail grant and supplied the order within two days. (¶ 44(a)-44(c))
- Bail reasoning and judicial language must avoid patriarchal assumptions concerning clothing, past conduct, chastity, alcohol use, expected resistance or injury and supposed consent. Courts must not propose marriage, mediation or compromise between the accused and survivor in gender-related crime cases, and must maintain sensitivity and confidence in judicial impartiality. (¶ 38-45)
- Gender-sensitisation modules were mandated in judicial foundational training and continuing education, with appropriate expert consultation and training for public prosecutors and standing counsel. The National Judicial Academy was requested to develop the material, preferably within three months, in consultation with State academies. (¶ 46-47)
- The Bar Council was directed to consult experts about undergraduate education and require sexual-offence and gender-sensitisation topics in the All India Bar Examination. High Courts were to develop expert-assisted judicial-sensitivity modules for judicial-service examinations. These institutional directions accompanied removal of the conditions, rather than a merits determination of the criminal charge. (¶¶ 48, 50-54)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Challenged bail conditions set aside and expunged; protective, judicial-conduct and gender-sensitisation directions issued. No costs.