Akash v. State of U.P.: When Judicial Insensitivity Meets Legal Scrutiny
Introduction
On 26th March, 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih put a stay on an Allahabad High Court ruling that had stated actions such as “grabbing of breasts” and “loosening of pyjama string” did not constitute an attempt to rape.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter after the controversial observations made headlines all over the country. Expressing extreme disapproval, Justice Gavai remarked, “This is total insensitivity by the judge.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also highlighted that some rulings contain inherent flaws that justify an immediate stay, and this was one such case.
Background
On March 17, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court ruled in a case (2025 SCC OnLine All 1476), involving the alleged attempted rape of a minor girl by two men-Akash and Pawan, in 2021.
In his judgment, Justice Mishra emphasized the distinction between preparation and an actual attempt to commit an offense, stating that the accused's actions which involved grabbing the minor’s breasts, loosening her lower garment, and attempting to drag her under a culvert- did not amount to an attempt to rape.
“The allegations against the accused Pawan and Akash do not meet the threshold for an attempt to rape. To establish such a charge, the prosecution must prove that the act went beyond mere preparation,” the judgment stated.
Instead, the judge deemed it more appropriate and saw it fit to charge the accused under lesser offenses, specifically assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe (Section 354(b) IPC) and aggravated sexual assault on a child (Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012).
Massive Public Outrage
The judgment quickly sparked controversy and was felt across the entire country. On March 20, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu action via Twitter, while Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, on behalf of the NGO ‘We the Women of India,’ also raised concerns through a letter.
Following this, on March 24, a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and P.B. Varale dismissed an appeal challenging the ruling on the grounds of locus standi.
However, on March 25, the Supreme Court decided to hear the matter suo motu.
Supreme Court's View
During the hearing (Ancillary Issues, SMW(Crl) No. 000001 / 2025, decided on 26-3-2025), the judges expressed deep concern over the clear insensitivity reflected in the High Court’s observations. They also noted that although courts do not usually stay decisions at such an early stage, the nature of the comments warranted an immediate action.
Solicitor General Mehta suggested that the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, as the Master of the Roster, should intervene in the matter. Consequently, the bench has now issued a notice to the state of Uttar Pradesh and the parties involved in the High Court proceedings.
Necessity
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Allahabad High Court judgment is absolutely necessary and a justified intervention, considering the insensitivity displayed in the lower court's reasoning. The ruling in question failed to acknowledge the gravity of the offense and had set an extremely dangerous precedent by downplaying acts that clearly demonstrated sexual intent and coercion.
Moreover, the distinction made between "preparation" and "attempt" in this case is deeply flawed, as it ignores the harrowing reality of sexual violence and the trauma inflicted on the victim. Attempted rape should not be reduced to a mere technicality, considering cases where the intent and actions of the accused are evident.
The judicial reasoning in the case is a stark example of how judicial interpretation can sometimes dilute the seriousness of the nature of sexual offenses. The mere idea of suggesting that actions such as grabbing a minor’s breasts and loosening her garments do not constitute an attempt to rape- trivializes the experience of victims and creates unnecessary legal hurdles for justice.
It also risks emboldening perpetrators by essentially conveying to them that unless a sexual assault is completed, the offense can be categorized under lesser charges. This in turn, is not just a failure of legal reasoning but a failure of empathy and understanding.
The swift action taken by the Supreme Court has sent a strong message that such judicial insensitivity will not be tolerated. It is true that Courts are expected to be guided by legal principles, however, they must also reflect a sense of justice and fairness that aligns with the ever- evolving understanding of sexual crimes. Moreover, the pertinent case highlights the need for a more standardized approach to defining and prosecuting sexual offenses, ensuring that judicial discretion does not lead to inconsistent and regressive and harmful rulings.
The judiciary must remain a pillar of justice and not an added barrier.
The author affirms that this article is an entirely original work, never before submitted for publication at any journal, blog or other publication avenue. Any unintentional resemblance to previously published material is purely coincidental. This article is intended solely for academic and scholarly discussion. The author takes personal responsibility for any potential harm of any kind or of infringement of intellectual property rights belonging to any individuals, organizations, governments, or institutions.