NDLI: Aparna Bhat & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Bail condition – Accused guilty of sexual offence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Bail condition – Accused guilty of sexual offence – Rakhi tying as a condition for bail, propriety – Imposing conditions that implicitly tend to condone or diminish the harm caused by the accused and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma is forbidden – The law does not permit or countenance such conduct, where the survivor can potentially be traumatized many times over or be led into some kind of non- voluntary acceptance, or be compelled by the circumstances to accept and condone behavior what is a serious offence – Using rakhi tying as a condition for bail, transforms a molester into a brother, by a 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 – The law criminalizes outraging the modesty of a woman – Granting bail, subject to such conditions, renders the court susceptible to the charge of re-negotiating and mediating justice between confronting parties in a criminal offence and perpetuating gender stereotypes – Crime against women – Gender violence. Crime against women: Sexual offences – Role of the courts and law enforcement agencies as neutral authorities, under a duty to ensure fairness – The courts while adjudicating cases involving gender related crimes, should not suggest or entertain any notions (or encourage any steps) towards compromises between the prosecutrix and the accused to get married, suggest or mandate mediation between the accused and the survivor, or any form of compromise as it is beyond their powers and jurisdiction – Sensitivity should be displayed at all times by judges, who should ensure that there is no traumatization of the prosecutrix, during the proceedings – Judicial restraint. Judicial stereotyping: Concept of – It is a common and pernicious barrier to justice, particularly for women victims and survivors of violence – Such stereotyping causes judges to reach a view about cases based on preconceived beliefs, rather than relevant facts and actual enquiry – ‘Judicial stereotyping’ refers to the practice of judges ascribing to an individual specific attributes, characteristics or roles by reason only of her or his membership in a particular social group (e.g. women) – It is used, also, to refer to the practice of judges perpetuating harmful stereotypes through their failure to challenge them, for example by lower courts or parties to legal proceedings – Stereotyping excludes any individualized consideration of, or investigation into, a person’s actual circumstances and their needs or abilities. Administration of justice: Role of the courts – 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 stereotype of the ideal sexual assault victim disqualifies several accounts of lived experiences of sexual assault – Rape myths undermine the credibility of those women who are seen to deviate too far from stereotyped notions of chastity, resistance to rape, having visible physical injuries, behaving a certain way, reporting the offence immediately, etc. – Judicial stereotyping – Judicial Bias.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 192
Petitioner	Aparna Bhat & Ors.
Respondent	State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
SCR	[2021] 4 S.C.R. 510
Judgement Date	2021-03-18
Case Number	329

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Aparna Bhat & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mango Ram

Jeetendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Hussain and Anr. Vs. Union of India

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr Vs. Medha Patkar & Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babbu Barkare @ Dalap Singh

Jadunath Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors. Etc.

Union of India Vs. Niyazuddin Sk & Anr.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Saleem@ Chamaru and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.p. and Anr.

Aparna Bhat & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Aparna Bhat & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mango Ram

Jeetendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Hussain and Anr. Vs. Union of India

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr Vs. Medha Patkar & Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babbu Barkare @ Dalap Singh

Jadunath Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors. Etc.

Union of India Vs. Niyazuddin Sk & Anr.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Saleem@ Chamaru and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.p. and Anr.

Aparna Bhat & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.