Patna HC Ruling on 'Attempt to Rape' Prompts Calls for Mandatory Judicial Training
The recent observations of the Patna High Court in an attempt-to-rape case have reignited debate over judicial interpretation of sexual offences. Women's rights activists and a legal expert have stressed that judicial reasoning must align with the law, constitutional values, and the dignity of survivors.
The controversy began after the Patna High Court, according to media reports, held that attempting to remove a woman's salwar and pressing her breasts did not constitute an attempt to rape. The Supreme Court later expressed serious concern over the High Court's remarks, with a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant noting a 'lack of thorough research' before such judgments. The apex court stated it would pass a detailed order on the matter.
Women's rights activist Yogita Bhayana described the High Court's observation as 'very insensitive,' alleging that many judges hold a patriarchal mindset. 'Just because someone becomes a judge does not mean they are gender-sensitive or gender-neutral,' she told PTI. She called for mandatory gender-sensitisation and legal training for judges across all levels of the judiciary, noting that similar programmes exist for police, schools, and corporate entities but not for judges.
Archana Agnihotri, founder of the NGO Samadhan Abhiyan, termed the observations 'shocking' and said judges dealing with sexual offence cases need proper orientation. 'The law is very clear... They don't even read the law. And despite being judges, they are making such statements. It is embarrassing,' she stated. She proposed that judges should be tested on their knowledge of the law before delivering verdicts in such cases.
Another activist, Shobha Vijender, emphasised that cases falling within the legal definition of rape should be treated accordingly, and those that do not should not be mischaracterised.
The activists expressed concern that such observations could deter survivors from reporting crimes and undermine confidence in the justice system. Bhayana noted, 'Survivors first fight society and even their own families before they reach the police... But if judges make such absurd observations, who will have the courage to report these crimes?'
The Supreme Court's intervention was welcomed, but activists stressed that expressions of concern alone are insufficient. They called for concrete measures, including mandatory training for judges to ensure gender sensitivity and accurate application of the law.
