Rape? No You Asked For It
A controversial judgment by Allahabad High Court judges and their absurd logic and misplaced moral policing in a rape cases.
In a move that will surely be immortalised in the dusty annals of Judicial Gymnastics, the Honourable Justices of the Allahabad High Court have once again outdone themselves—this time not in upholding justice, but in the fine art of blame-shifting, skirt-policing, and redefining sexual assault with all the nuance of a drunk man attempting ballet.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, clearly having leafed through the 19th Century Guide to Feminine Modesty before drafting his order, has generously granted bail to an accused rapist on the grounds that the victim was both intoxicated and had, in a shocking turn of events, willingly accepted help. Well, that settles it then—she must’ve been asking for it, poor girl, what with her reckless indulgence in consensual naan at 3 a.m. in Hauz Khas.
And what a splendid piece of judicial wisdom: “She invited trouble.” Quite right, Your Lordship. Much like one invites an unexpected tax audit, or a rogue meteorite to land on one’s head. Truly, the art of ‘inviting trouble’ has reached new heights. Perhaps women will henceforth receive formal training on how not to fall asleep, not to be drunk, and not to be raped.
Justice Singh then proceeds, Sherlock-like, to deduce that since the victim is pursuing a postgraduate degree, she must therefore possess a fully developed moral compass, superhuman foresight, and the uncanny ability to detect criminal intent through beer goggles and dim lighting. Indeed, if intelligence were a prophylactic, crime would vanish entirely.
Meanwhile, Justice Mishra, in his earlier verdict, gave us the judicial equivalent of, “Oh come now, it’s only a bit of boob-grabbing and pyjama-snapping. Boys will be boys, what?” His reasoning, if one dares call it that, is reminiscent of a Year 8 student explaining why he shouldn’t get detention for bringing fireworks to school: “But sir, I didn’t light them!”
According to his Lordship, pulling down someone’s trousers and attempting to drag them under a culvert isn’t quite rapey enough for a Section 376. Apparently, attempted rape now requires the assailant to provide a notarised document, complete with a declaration of intent, timetable, and ideally, a musical interlude.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in, expressing pain, dismay, and the kind of disappointment usually reserved for when one’s Labrador eats the wedding cake. Their Lordships at the top noted the “total lack of sensitivity,” which is judicial lingo for What on God’s green earth were you thinking?
One must, however, give credit where it’s due. It takes a certain level of Olympian contortionism to turn a rape complaint into a lecture on morality for the victim. These judgments are less about law and more about misplaced nostalgia for the Victorian era, when women were best seen, not heard—and certainly not drinking mojitos after midnight.
If these rulings were a curry, they’d be all salt and no spice. If they were a cricket match, they’d be declared a farce by tea. And if they were a comedy, well—they are.
News and Picture Sources NDTV
What's Your Reaction?
