The recent intervention by the Supreme Court in a sexual assault case has reignited concerns about judicial sensitivity and legal interpretation in cases of sexual violence. A ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which downplayed the severity of an assault on an 11- year-old girl, sparked public outrage and underscored the persistent challenges within the justice system when dealing with sexual crimes.

At the heart of the controversy was the argument that the accused had not gone beyond the stage of preparation to commit rape, a distinction drawn on technical and legal grounds. Such reasoning fails to recognise the lived reality of victims and instead treats sexual violence as a matter of cold legal semantics. In cases of sexual assault, the intent be hind an act is often clear from the very nature of the aggression. The argument that an assault only constitutes an “attempt” at rape if it crosses an arbitrarily defined threshold disregards the power dynamics at play and the trauma inflicted. The question is not merely whether a crime was completed but whether a victim’s dignity, security, and bodily autonomy were violated.

Advertisement

The decision to minimise the gravity of the crime was not made im pulsively but after months of deliberation, which makes it all the more alarming. Courts have a duty to up hold justice not just in letter but in spirit. A verdict that dismisses violent actions as something lesser than what they are sends a dangerous message to society ~ one that emboldens perpetrators and undermines survi – v ors’ faith in the legal system. The fact that the ruling had to be overturned by the Supreme Court speaks volumes about the urgent need for consistent, victim-centred jurisprudence.

This is not the first instance of judicial reasoning appearing to favour legal technicalities over justice for survivors. There have been past cases where courts have set troubling precedents by focusing on narrow legal definitions rather than the essence of the crime. Such interpretations only serve to weaken the fight against sexual violence. When the justice system he sitates to call an act of sexual violence what it truly is, it creates an environment where perpetrators believe they can evade the full force of the law. What is required is a judicial approach that prioritises survivor-centric perspectives over rigid textual readings of the law.

The focus should be on whether the survivor’s rights were violated, not on whether the crime fits a narrow and outdated legal framework. A progressive, informed judiciary is essential in ensuring that laws designed to protect women and children are not diluted by misplaced interpretations. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case was necessary to restore public faith in the legal system. However, the fact that such an insensitive ruling was issued in the first place highlights an urgent need for gender sensitisation for judges. A legal system that fails to recognise the lived experiences of survivors is one that risks betraying its fundamental purpose ~ to deliver justice.