High Courts trivializing sexual offences "nothing but drama", must be condemned: AG KK Venugopal to Supreme Court

Attorney General for India KK Venugopal today submitted before the Supreme Court that orders by High Courts trivializing sexual offences are "nothing but drama" and "must be condemned.".Calling gender sensitization training as the need of the hour for judges, AG Venugopal has mooted having "Gender Sensitization" as a subject for judges recruitment exam and also as a subject for training at the National Judicial Academy and State Judicial Academy. .A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Sanjiv Khanna and Dinesh Maheshwari were hearing a challenge to a July 30 bail condition imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court where a man accused of sexual assault was asked to get a Rakhi tied on him by the victim. .AG Venugopal was issued notice by the Supreme Court in the case to peruse a larger question on how to draw a line to refrain judges from making such conditions for bail orders. He observed today that, ."... on the face of it the court seems to have been carried away. Court must restrict themselves to conditions under 437 and 438 (Sections of the CrPC). All this is drama and this needs to be condemned."Attorney General KK Venugopal.He further submitted, ."So far as gender sensitization is concerned, gender sensitization and grievance redressal committee is there in Supreme Court and lectures need to be given to district and subordinate, high courts too about gender sensitization. The suggestion is the exam for judges and National judicial academy and State judicial academy must have programs on gender sensitization. As far as the committee is concerned, a Supreme Court judgment should be put on the State information system which will go to subordinate courts.".He also added,"This is an opportunity for this Court to impart gender sensitization.".The top Court has now asked AG Venugopal and all parties concerned to file written submissions or notes regarding the steps that can be taken. .Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for 96-year-old ex-judge and an 84-year-old senior advocate who have intervened in the case, was also allowed by the Court to file written submissions. .The matter has now been listed after three weeks, and is expected to be taken up on November 27..The Court was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Aparna Bhat and eight other women lawyers questioning the trivialization of sexual offences by courts in India, in the wake of the controversial rakhi-for-bail Madhya Pradesh bail order passed on July 30. .Nine women lawyers challenge Madhya Pradesh HC bail condition directing man accused of sexual assault to get Rakhi tied by victim.Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh had argued that the plea is not limited to the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, but calls into question such remarks made by judges that "objectify" women who have suffered sexual assault..The plea had sought for a stay on the condition for bail imposed by the High Court. The petitioners have stated that they have not challenged the grant of bail, but only the condition of tying Rakhi..The High Court order in question states:"The applicant along with his wife shall visit the house of the complainant with Rakhi thread / band on 03rd August, 2020 at 11:00 am with a box of sweets and request the complainant- Sarda Bai to tie the Rakhi band to him with the promise to protect her to the best of his ability for all times to come. He shall also tender Rs. 11,000 to the complainant as a customary ritual usually offered by the brothers to sisters on such occasion and shall also seek her blessings.".However, the Supreme Court bench had noted that a case does not lie against the Madhya Pradesh High Court bail order now, as "the condition for bail was already met.".The plea avers that since the judgment comes from a High Court, it would trivialize such an 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 Hon’ble High Court ought to have been cognizant and sensitive to the fact that in a case involving a sexual offence having been committed against a woman, it is immeasurably difficult for the survivor to lodge an FIR and pursue a criminal case against the accused at the threshold," the plea says..One of the substantial questions of law raised in the plea is: "Whether in a case seeking bail, it is appropriate for a court to impose extraneous conditions which allows contact between the accused and the complainant?"The High Court direction that the accused visit the victim's house would also lead to the "victimization of the survivor in her own house", the petitioners submit. The plea further highlights that the alleged offence of outraging the victim's modesty, in this case, was committed by the accused by forcibly entering the victim's house..Objection was also raised towards that fact that the sexual assault survivor is "forced to accept the sum of Rs. 11,000 as part of the customary ritual of Rakhshabandhan", as opposed to compensation that may be awarded by courts.