Judicial insensitivity in India: Controversial rulings on crimes against women

The judiciary in the country, tasked with upholding justice, has faced intense scrutiny for remarks and rulings in cases of crimes against women that many deem insensitive. From the Supreme Court to high courts, judges have made comments that appear to trivialise victims’ trauma, igniting public fury.

In 2022, the Supreme Court commuted a death sentence for a man convicted of raping and murdering a four-year-old, citing “every sinner has a future.” Similarly, the Bombay High Court’s 2021 ruling that sexual assault requires “skin-to-skin contact” under the POCSO Act was widely criticised until overturned.

These remarks, often obiter dicta—non-binding observations—shape perceptions of justice, leaving victims and activists questioning the system’s empathy. When courts seem to prioritise the accused’s future over survivors’ pain, trust erodes, and the call for reform grows louder.  

Lenient judgments fuelling public outrage  

High courts across India have delivered verdicts that appear to let perpetrators off lightly, further fuelling public anger. In 2021, the Bombay High Court ruled that kissing on the lips or touching private parts is not an “unnatural offence.”

The Calcutta High Court, in 2022, declared that dragging a minor girl’s dupatta or forcing a marriage proposal does not constitute sexual assault.

The Gujarat High Court, in 2018, questioned a victim’s lack of sufficient resistance, while the Chhattisgarh High Court suggested in 2022 that “silence during the act implies consent.”

Such rulings, often rooted in technicalities or outdated norms, have led to protests and heated debates on platforms like X. The Supreme Court has intervened in cases like the “skin-to-skin” ruling, but the initial judgments leave lasting scars, pushing citizens to demand accountability and stricter penalties.  

Systemic flaws and frivolous cases  

The Indian judiciary’s challenges extend beyond remarks and rulings to systemic issues. With over 70,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone, the system is overburdened, allowing some frivolous cases to reach the top through the appellate process.

This clogs the courts, delaying justice for serious crimes like rape. For instance, the Jharkhand High Court’s 2020 remark that a “delay in FIR weakens the case” highlights how technicalities can undermine victims’ claims.

Many judges lack gender sensitisation training, exacerbating the problem. Survivors often wait years for justice, while perpetrators exploit legal loopholes. The backlog and lack of training underscore the urgent need for systemic reforms to ensure swift and sensitive handling of cases involving crimes against women.  

The path to reform  

The judiciary’s insensitivity has sparked a broader conversation about reform. The Supreme Court’s efforts to correct lower court errors, such as overturning the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 2020 “Rakhi” order—where a molester was asked to have his victim tie a Rakhi for bail—show a commitment to addressing missteps.

However, these corrections often come too late to restore public trust. Activists and citizens are calling for mandatory gender sensitisation training for judges, faster case disposal, and a focus on victims’ dignity. Social media, particularly X, amplifies these demands, with users sharing stories of delayed justice and insensitive remarks.

Reforming the judiciary requires not just legal changes but a cultural shift to prioritise survivors over outdated stereotypes.  

Judicial insensitivity in India, from controversial remarks to lenient rulings, has deepened the pain of victims of crimes against women and eroded public trust. While the Supreme Court often steps in to correct lower court errors, systemic issues like case backlogs and lack of training persist. As India grapples with these challenges, the path forward lies in training judges, streamlining processes, and centring victims’ voices. Only then can the judiciary rebuild faith and deliver justice that truly serves.