The allahabad High Court's contentious ruling that "grabbing breasts" and "breaking the strings of a girl's pyjamas" do not amount to rape or an attempt at rape was halted by the supreme court on Wednesday. The supreme court claimed that the ruling lacked tact when it took suo moto cognisance of the order, which caused a stir.
Given that the verdict was rendered four months after the decision was reserved, the top court observed that it was not rendered on the spur of the moment and that it was the result of careful consideration.
Given that the verdict was rendered four months after the decision was reserved, the top court observed that it was not rendered on the spur of the moment and that it was the result of careful consideration.
"We are at pains to state that it shows total lack of sensitivity on part of the author of the judgment. It was not even at the spur of the moment and was delivered 4 months after reserving the same. Thus, there was application of mind," a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih said.
"We are usually hesitant to grant stay at this stage. But since the observations in para 21, 24 and 26 are unknown to cannons of law and show an inhuman approach, we stay the observations," the supreme court said.
"We are usually hesitant to grant stay at this stage. But since the observations in para 21, 24 and 26 are unknown to cannons of law and show an inhuman approach, we stay the observations," the supreme court said.
The supreme court asked the government of Uttar Pradesh and the Center for their opinions on the matter.
"The Union, the state of Uttar Pradesh, and the parties before the HC are all given notice. The court stated that the learned Solicitor General and Attorney General will support it.
It's interesting to note that a PIL challenging the same court order was denied by another supreme court bench on march 24.
"The Union, the state of Uttar Pradesh, and the parties before the HC are all given notice. The court stated that the learned Solicitor General and Attorney General will support it.
It's interesting to note that a PIL challenging the same court order was denied by another supreme court bench on march 24.
