A regressive verdict

THE Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to a rape accused on the grounds that the “victim herself invited trouble” is as appalling as it is regressive. In brushing aside the central issue of consent, the court’s words dangerously echo outdated, patriarchal tropes that have no place in modern jurisprudence. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh’s observations — that the woman was “competent enough to understand the significance of her act” and that her visit to the accused’s house after consuming alcohol was “inviting trouble” — amount to little more than judicial victim-blaming. This not only shames the survivor but also signals to society that accountability lies with the victim rather than the perpetrator.

It flies in the face of established legal precedent, including the Supreme Court’s categorical stand that “no means no”. This stance has been reaffirmed in various rulings interpreting Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act. In rape cases, the law presumes absence of consent when the victim testifies so. This legal provision was designed to protect survivors from invasive scrutiny and to shift focus onto the actions of the accused.

Alarmingly, this is not an isolated incident. In February 2025, the same court granted bail to a rape accused on the condition that he marry the survivor within three months of release. Such judgments not only undermine the gravity of the crime but also risk coercing survivors into unwanted relationships, further compromising their autonomy and dignity. The Allahabad High Court, by bypassing this statutory safeguard, undermines decades of legal reform and feminist struggle. The question before the court was whether the accused forced himself upon the woman without her consent — not what she drank, where she went or whom she trusted.

Editorials