The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday (Apr 15) expressed its displeasure as it pulled up the Allahabad High Court for its observation that the rape victim "invited trouble". The top court cautioned judges against making inappropriate observations in cases involving sexual violence against women. This comes along with another judgement by the Bombay High Court in which the accused was granted bail in a sexual assault case involving a minor, with the court saying that the minor "had sufficient knowledge" and joined the man "voluntarily."
Advertisment
Additionally, the Supreme Court is also hearing a suo moto case wherein the Allahabad High Court stated that grabbing a woman's breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her pyjama "did not amount to attempted rape." The apex court stayed the order that was passed last month (March 2025) and called he statement by the high court "highly insensitive." 
Advertisment
The courts in India, including lower courts and high courts, have repeatedly issued inappropriate statements and orders blaming victims. In several cases, the courts have been slammed for their language in cases related to gender violence, sexual abuse, etc. However, despite active coverage by media, criticism by civic society, and rap by top court, these instances seem to be increasing. 
Women across the spectrum have called for sensitisation of courts to prevent such instances and have expressed their fears that the judiciary will lose its trust if such statements become rampant. They have also called out the deep-rooted misogyny. 
Advertisment
Nalini Bhattar, research scholar at the Department of Women's Studies at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), is of the opinion that victims' trauma is exacerbated and public trust is damaged when the judiciary overlooks the basic principle of equality and issues a statement that is deeply rooted in misogyny.
"When judiciary displays gender insensitivity, victims' trauma is exacerbated in addition to public trust being damaged. Judges' recent regressive remarks, in which they blame survivors of rape or harassment for their experience, are extremely concerning and intolerable. Such statements undermine the fundamental basis of justice by shifting the emphasis from the accused/convicts to the victim. It is rooted in misogyny," Bhattar says.
Read More |  Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC's ruling that 'grabbing breasts and pulling pyjama strings' not rape

A look back at controversial statements by Indian courts in the recent past

In August 2024, the Supreme Court was appalled by every paragraph of a Calcutta High Court judgment dated October 18, 2023 asking adolescent girls to “control their sexual urges”. “Sex in adolescents is normal but sexual urge or arousal of such urge is dependent on some action by the individual, may be a man or woman. Therefore, sexual urge is not at all normal and normative,” the Calcutta High Court had stated. The top court had called the judgment "absolutely wrong" and  reminded that “the honourable judges are not expected to either express their personal views or preach.”
In September 2024, the Supreme Court asked judges to refrain from making “casual observations” that reveal their communal bias or misogyny. The “heart and soul of judging is to be fair”, it observed, and noted that judges must strictly adhere to the values laid down by the Constitution and not be guided by prejudice.
Elaborating on the top court's observation, Vinita Pandey, lawyer and Assistant Professor at Career Point University, says that "sensitisation of judges is important at every level." Citing a Madras High Court judgement, Pandey explained that the judge had categorically stated that he wasn't informed enough about the issues with transgenders. "Sensitisation of police and lower judiciary is not enough, it has to be at every level, from top to bottom."
Along with sensitisation, accountability is also important, says Meghna Mehra, founder of All India Queer Association (AIQA) Foundation. Mehra adds, "The Allahbad HC's judgement caused more harm than we can anticipate because it further blames the victims. We need to have better accountability from judges and men alike."
In the same vein, Bhattar opines, "In order to ensure that justice is not only carried out but also perceived as having been carried out, particularly for individuals who come forward during their most vulnerable moments, the judiciary must adhere to the values of empathy, impartiality, and gender sensitivity. Otherwise it will give an authority and space to the assaulter to do whatever they want to do, with the women, with impunity."

Read More | Allahabad HC holds woman 'responsible' in rape case, grants bail to accused: 'She invited trouble'

'Male-dominated worldview responsible for such statements'

Insensitive remarks by judges are not limited to high courts. In August 2022, the district and sessions judge at Kozhikode, acknowledged the ‘revealing and provocative dress’ of the complainant woman as a valid ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused in a molestation case.
In the same year, while granting bail in rape case of a 15-year-old girl, the Bombay High Court held that the alleged accused is a young boy and it cannot rule out "the possibility of him being smitten by infatuation".
In November 2021, another plea was filed in the Supreme Court regarding a Bombay High Court judgment wherein  a person under the POCSO Act was acquited citing the reason that there was "no skin-to-skin contact.
In 2020, the Karnataka High Court while granting bail to rape accused said it is "unbecoming of an Indian woman to sleep after being ravished. This is not how our women react."
The list goes on, and it is hard to see these incidents as standalones. Therefore, some women also feel that patriarchal structure and inherited misogyny cannot be ended by sensitisation and accountability alone. 
Maria Khanam, a gender and development researcher, says, "These are not isolated slips of language. They are symptomatic of a deeply embedded patriarchal consciousness within the legal system. Such statements function as discursive tools that not only reflect but actively reinforce gendered hierarchies, thus impeding access to substantive justice for survivors."
She goes on to explain, "Feminist legal theorists such as Catharine MacKinnon have long argued that law is not a neutral arbiter but a gendered institution—structured through male-dominated worldviews that define the “reasonable person” standard in masculine terms. When judges invoke moralistic narratives about women’s sexuality, they are not merely expressing personal bias but perpetuating androcentric knowledge systems—frameworks that marginalize women’s experiences and normalize male-centric norms."

Read More | Supreme Court pulls up Allahabad HC for woman 'invited trouble' remark in rape case order
In 2023, then-Chief Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud introduced a handbook on gender stereotypes. But was it of any use? Seemingly not. A section of the justice delivery system still appears to be immune to the principles of gender equality guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as ignorant to the sensitivity of the cases related to gender-based violence. Handbooks cannot serve their purpose until gender sensitivity is understood by individual judges. 
Read More | Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Allahabad HC judge who ruled ‘grabbing breasts not rape attempt’?