Ahmedabad, March 18: The Supreme Court set aside a contentious judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. on Thursday, where a man accused of sexual assault was asked to tie a “rakhi” to the victim as a condition for him to get bail.

The July 2020 order of Madhya Pradesh High Court was challenged by Supreme Court advocate Aparna Bhat and eight other women where an accused in a case where the man who had allegedly outraged the modesty of the woman was asked to go to the complainant and get her to tie a “rakhi” on his wrist before he could become eligible for bail.

The Supreme Court in it’s judgement said that ‘entrenched paternalistic and misogynistic attitudes (that) are regrettably reflected at times in judicial orders and judgments. Citing the number of cases where High Courts and other courts have made wide ranging remarks on the victims which the appellants pointed out, the apex court issued directions to lower courts while dealing with bail petitions in cases of crimes against women.

In its plea, advocate Bhat states that “Such judgments from High Courts would end up trivializing such heinous offence and that there is a strong likelihood that such observations and directions may result in normalizing what is essentially a crime and has been recognized to be so by the law”.

The Supreme Court stated in the order, “Using rakhi tying as a condition for bail, transforms a molester into a brother, by judicial mandate. This is wholly unacceptable, and has the effect of diluting and eroding the offence of sexual harassment. The act perpetrated on the survivor constitutes an offence in law, and is not a minor transgression that can be remedied by way of an apology, rendering community service, tying a rakhi or presenting a gift to the survivor, or even promising to marry her, as the case may be.”

Speaking to Lifenews, Ms Bhat said, “I hope the directions given by the Supreme Court are followed by lower courts while dealing with cases of crimes against women otherwise these directions would remain on paper and not be adhered to. This is an important judgment especially in the present climate.”

The top court had also issued a notice to Attorney General K K Venugopal on October 16, 2020, to ask his views and suggestions on the issue. Venugopal then filed written submissions on the steps that could be considered to correct the non-empathetic approach of judges in cases of sexual violence. He suggested that judges, who are “old school” and “patriarchal” in their outlook, need to be sensitised so that they do not pass orders objectifying women in cases of sexual violence.

 Further the apex court said, “Judges can play a significant role in ridding the justice system of harmful stereotypes. They have an important responsibility to base their decisions on law and facts in evidence, and not engage in gender stereotyping. This requires judges to identify gender stereotyping, and identify how the application, enforcement or perpetuation of these stereotypes discriminates against women or denies them equal access to justice. Stereotyping might compromise the impartiality of a judge’s decision and affect his or her views about witness credibility or the culpability of the accused person.

 The Supreme Court directed that, “Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim. Such conditions should seek to protect the complainant from any further harassment by the accused…”

 In the end, the Supreme Court also stated, “As far as the training and sensitization of judges and lawyers, including public prosecutors goes, this court hereby mandates that a module on gender sensitization be included, as part of the foundational training of every judge. This module must aim at imparting techniques for judges to be more sensitive in hearing and deciding cases of sexual assault, and eliminating entrenched social bias, especially misogyny. The module should also emphasize the prominent role that judges are expected to play in society, as role models and thought  leaders, in promoting equality and ensuring fairness, safety and security to all women who allege the  perpetration of  sexual offences  against  them. Equally, the use of language and appropriate words and

phrases should be emphasized as part of this training.

The order was passed by Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice S Ravindra Bhat.