Aparna Bhat vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 

CITATION	AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1492
DATE OF JUDGMENT	18 March 2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Aparna Bhat
RESPONDENT	State of Madhya Pradesh
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Justice A M Khanwilkar

INTRODUCTION

Judicial decisions make a big impact on society by creating examples that people follow. For example, when courts order tying a Rakhi on the wrist of an accused to make them like a brother, it can make light of serious issues like sexual harassment. It’s important to avoid using language or reasoning that belittles the offense and makes the survivor feel less important. Such actions can make the survivor feel hurt all over again or force them to accept behavior that is really wrong. It’s crucial to show how serious offenses like sexual harassment are to make sure everyone gets treated fairly and protected.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petition was lodged by Advocate Aparna Bhat and eight other lawyers against the contested ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 30. In this ruling, the individual accused of sexual assault was instructed to go to the victim’s residence on Raksha Bandhan, bring a Rakhi, and have it tied by the victim as a condition for bail.
2.  The accused, who is a neighbor of the complainant Sarda Bai, unlawfully entered her home on April 20, 2020, and allegedly attempted to sexually harass her. Consequently, the police filed an FIR against the accused for offenses under sections 452, 354A, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
3. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was submitted. Subsequently, the accused applied for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
4. The accused, as a condition for bail set by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was required to visit Sarda Bai’s home on August 3, 2020, with his wife on Raksha Bandhan. They were asked to bring a box of sweets and request Sarda Bai to tie a Rakhi on the accused, promising to protect her in the future to the best of his ability.
5.  Additionally, the accused had to give Rs. 11,000 as a gift, a customary practice during Raksha Bandhan. These conditions have been challenged by the petitioners in the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Can there be a settlement between the accused and the victim in such situations?
2.  Are court orders like these acceptable, and if so, what impact would they have on society?
3. Do such directives suggest an unfair trial process? 
4. Should the accused be allowed to interact with the survivor or their family members? 
5. What guidelines should the courts consider when granting bail or anticipatory bail?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The petitioners had argued to overturn the High Court’s decision. They stated that Section 437(3) and Section 438(2)(iv) of the CrPC allow courts to impose any condition they see fit ‘in the public interest,’ but these conditions must align with other provisions of the law.
2. The petitioners referred to the case of State of M.P v. Madanlal and contended that in cases of sexual offenses, the idea of compromise, especially through marriage between the accused and the victim, is unacceptable. 
3. They argued that such a resolution should not be seen as a legal solution, as it would go against the woman’s honor and dignity.
4. The petitioner also urged the court not to pass any judgment or order that could impact women’s dignity or the fairness of the trial. They mentioned various cases where the apex court rejected the idea of compromise as it would be against women’s honor and dignity. This shows that such crimes should not be resolved through compromises as it devalues the seriousness of the offense.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

The intervenors’ counsel stated that as per sections 437(2) and 438, the court has the power to impose conditions in a broad manner. They referred to various judgments where courts have imposed specific conditions for granting bail.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court canceled the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order. The judges highlighted the need for courts to refrain from adopting a lenient or overly liberal approach that could result in a sanctuary of errors.

The court set out various guidelines and instructions:

– No contact between the accused and the complainant should be allowed as a bail condition. If bail is granted, the complainant must be informed promptly and given a copy of the bail order within two days.

– Bail conditions must strictly adhere to the Cr.P.C. provisions and should not reflect patriarchal views against women.

– Suggestions for compromise, such as marriage or mediation, should not be considered by the courts as they fall outside their jurisdiction.Furthermore, the court underscored the significance of gender sensitization at all levels of the judiciary, as highlighted by the Attorney General in the arguments.

The court has made it mandatory for all judges to undergo a specific training module to ensure their sensitivity when dealing with cases of sexual offenses, with the aim of eradicating deep-rooted social biases and misogyny. The National Judicial Academy has been directed to promptly include gender sensitization in the training of new judges. Similarly, the Bar Council of India has been instructed to incorporate gender sensitization into the LL.B. curriculum and make it a compulsory topic in the All India Bar Examination syllabus.

ANALYSIS

The court has made it clear that in cases of rape and sexual assault, no compromise can be considered as it would go against the victim’s dignity. Courts and law enforcement agencies must remain impartial and unbiased to ensure a fair trial. Any deviation from this in such cases can shake the survivor’s trust in the court’s fairness.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the challenges faced by women and the societal attitudes towards them, which often result in their suffering. Women face numerous difficulties in society simply because of their gender.

Court decisions establish precedents that are followed by the community, and certain directives, such as requiring the tying of a Rakhi on the accused’s wrist to transform molesters into brothers through judicial order, can water down the seriousness of sexual harassment. Therefore, any language or rationale that diminishes the offense and undermines the survivor must be avoided at all costs.

CONCLUSION

Undoubtedly, judges play a critical role as teachers, protectors, and guardians, and their words set the standards that lower courts follow in their judgments. Therefore, it is crucial for judges to be extremely cautious when making statements that affect the core of the judiciary and the public’s trust. In cases involving women’s bodies, especially in matters of sexual offenses, even a small error in judgment or court statements can lead to serious harm to the survivors.

In recent times, there have been various instances of gender-related cases where courts have suggested compromises, like advising the victim to marry the accused or, as in the present case, ordering the accused to have a Rakhi tied on his wrist by the victim or proposing other compromises as directed by the court.

REFERENCES

1. SCC Online
2. https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=conditions%20of%20bail 
3. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/aparna-bhat-v-state-of-mp-168-390769.pdf 

This Article is written by Dilpreet Kaur student of Kanoria School of Law for Women, Jaipur; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.