Plea before Supreme Court against Tripura customary law allowing settlement of rape cases by paying fine

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the State of Tripura on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of Tripura’s Jamatia Customary Laws Act, 2017, which allegedly allows rape cases to be settled through payment of a fine of up to ₹1 lakh. [Madhumita Bhattacharya v. State of Tripura and Another]

A Bench of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought responses from the Tripura government and the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) on the plea filed by one Madhumita Bhattacharya.

The petition has challenged Section 143 of the Act, contending that it permits the private settlement and compounding of serious offences such as rape through payment of a fine of up to ₹1 lakh.

The PIL has sought a declaration that Section 143 is unconstitutional and has also prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to place all relevant records concerning the Act before the Court.

As per the plea,

“Section 143 of the Act, read with Section 164 (Penalties and Fines), essentially places a price tag on a woman's dignity. By permitting an accused to be absolved of grievous sexual violence via financial means, the provision dangerously dilutes the line between a minor traffic offence and a heinous criminal act involving intent to cause hurt.”

The PIL argues that the Sixth Schedule was designed to protect tribal cultural identity, social customs and land rights, but does not empower customary bodies to override national criminal laws governing serious offences.

It contends that Section 143 therefore exceeds the legislative powers available under the Sixth Schedule and creates a parallel framework for dealing with rape.

The plea also alleges that the provision creates an arbitrary and unconstitutional classification by denying tribal women equal protection of criminal law based on their geography and tribal affiliation, while undermining their dignity and bodily autonomy.

“Severe offences like rape, murder, and dacoity are not private disputes between two individuals, but rather offences committed against the society at large,” the petition states.

The PIL also refers to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh v Madanlal, contending that serious offences cannot be settled through compromises.

The plea was filed through advocate Shoumendu Mukherji.

[Read Order]