Supreme Court Slams Allahabad HC for ‘Molestation Not Rape’ Remark, Says Such Orders Discourage Victims

New Delhi: A debate has once again erupted regarding the sensitivity of the courts on cases of exploitation involving minors. The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong objection to the controversial order of the Allahabad High Court, which had said that touching the breast of a minor girl or opening the string of her pajama does not fall in the category of “rape or attempt to rape.” The Supreme Court immediately put a stay on this order and clearly indicated that such decisions will not be tolerated in the future.

What was the matter?

This case dates back to 2021, when a man was accused of trying to loosen the clothes of a minor girl and touching her body inappropriately. The family had filed an FIR terming this act as a serious exploitation crime. During the trial, serious sections of the POSCO Act and IPC were imposed on the accused.

But in March this year, the Allahabad High Court reduced the charges, saying the act was "preparatory" and not attempted rape. According to the court, touching the clothes or body of the victim does not reach the level of a crime like rape. This decision gave rise to widespread protests.

Why did the Supreme Court express its displeasure?

The Supreme Court said that narrowing the definition of exploitation offenses in this way is against the basic principles of justice. The Court remarked that any form of unwanted exploitation activity, especially with a minor, seriously injures the dignity of the victim. In such cases, courts should balance both sensitivity and legal understanding instead of getting bogged down in technical terms.

The Court also said that such decisions send a wrong message to the society and may create distrust in the judiciary in the minds of the victims. The Supreme Court clarified that the trial will now be conducted under the same serious sections which were registered earlier.

What do legal experts say?

Many legal experts say that the definition of “intent to outrage modesty” in the POCSO Act is very clear. Touching the victim's body with wrong intentions is also considered a serious crime. In such a situation, the High Court's decision seems weak on both legal and emotional grounds.

What will happen next?

Now the hearing of this case will resume in the lower court, and the accused will be tried under serious sections only. The Supreme Court has said that soon detailed guidelines can be considered for such sensitive cases so that there is no confusion in the future.