Answer

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2018 report, there were 12,256 cases of rape reported under the pretext of a false promise to marry. The Allahabad High Court’s 2025 ruling  in Atul Gautum Case raises concerns over judicial interpretations affecting women’s autonomy and legal protections.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Implications of the Decision of the Allahabad High Court in Atul Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)

• Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines: The decision contradicts the Aparna Bhat vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) ruling, which prohibits contact between the accused and survivor during bail to prevent secondary trauma.
  For example: The Supreme Court directed that bail conditions must not force any interaction between the survivor and the accused to ensure a fair trial.
• Compromising Survivor’s Justice: Such bail conditions prioritize social settlement over legal justice, reinforcing the notion that marriage is a solution for rape rather than punishment for the crime.
  For example: In Rama Shankar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), bail was granted on a similar condition, undermining the prosecution’s case against the accused.
• Encouragement of Coercion: The accused may manipulate or pressure the survivor into marriage to secure bail, leading to possible continued abuse within a legal framework.
  For example: In Abhishek vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the accused was granted bail by promising marriage, creating a coercive dynamic rather than ensuring justice.
• State’s Failure in Survivor Welfare: The ruling shifts responsibility from the state to the survivor, forcing her into dependence on the accused instead of receiving adequate rehabilitation support.
  For example: In Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2024), the court emphasized the state’s duty to provide housing, education, and counseling for survivors and children.
• Distortion of Bail’s Purpose: Bail is meant to ensure temporary liberty during trial, not to impose social obligations, which interferes with judicial neutrality and affects case outcomes.

Such Judicial Rulings Reinforce Gender Stereotypes and Affect Women’s Autonomy

• Perpetuation of ‘Honor’ Ideology: Such rulings reinforce the patriarchal belief that a woman’s dignity is linked to marriage, reducing rape to a loss of purity rather than a criminal act.
  For example: In several past judgments, courts have equated a survivor’s rehabilitation with marriage rather than recognizing rape as a violation of bodily autonomy.
• Legitimization of Forced Dependence: By pushing survivors into marriage with perpetrators, the courts enable a cycle of control and abuse under legal protection, eroding women’s right to independent choices.
• Undermining of Consent in Relationships: When courts use marriage as a remedy, they ignore the survivor’s lack of consent, sending a message that coercion can be legitimized through legal means.
  For example: In many cases of ‘compromise marriages’, women have been forced to stay with their abusers despite ongoing trauma and threats to their safety.
• Impact on Women’s Legal Rights: Such judgments erode women’s constitutional rights, contradicting Article 21, which guarantees dignity and autonomy, by coercing them into relationships they do not freely choose.
  For example: The Supreme Court has emphasized that forced marriages violate Article 21, making survivors vulnerable to further exploitation instead of receiving justice.
• Encouragement of Societal Misconceptions: These rulings reinforce the belief that sexual violence can be neutralized through marriage, reducing such cases to a civil dispute rather than a serious crime.
  For example: In conservative rural areas, survivors are often pressured to marry accused, as courts’ rulings provide legitimacy to such problematic norms.

Way Ahead

• Strict Judicial Adherence: Courts must follow established guidelines that prohibit imposing marriage as a bail condition, ensuring that justice remains free from social compromise.
  For example: The Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat Case (2021) ruled that courts must avoid bail conditions that reinforce gender stereotypes or force survivors into relationships.
• Comprehensive Survivor Rehabilitation: The state must strengthen welfare programs, providing financial aid, psychological support, legal assistance, and skill-building programs to make survivors self-reliant.
  For example: The One Stop Centre Scheme provides integrated support services, but expansion and better implementation are needed for effective impact.
• Legal Reforms: Legislative amendments should explicitly ban the practice of granting bail on the condition of marriage, ensuring that judicial discretion does not compromise survivors’ rights.
• Public Awareness and Judicial Sensitization: Conduct gender-sensitivity training for judges, ensuring that legal interpretations do not stem from patriarchal biases but uphold constitutional principles.
  For example: Judicial training programs, like those organized by the National Judicial Academy, must include modules on gender justice and survivors’ rights.
• Strengthening Fast-Track Court: Expedited trials will ensure quicker justice, reducing the need for survivors to be pressured into settlements due to prolonged legal battles.
  For example: The 2019 Nirbhaya Fund was allocated for fast-track courts, but many remain underutilized due to administrative delays and lack of resources.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

Judicial rulings like this may risk reinforcing patriarchal norms by undermining women’s right in live-in relationships. A balanced legal approach is needed to differentiate between fraudulent intent and relationship complexities. Strengthening legal safeguards and gender-sensitive judicial training can ensure justice without reinforcing stereotypes, aligning with India’s commitment to gender equality (SDG 5).

DOWNLOAD PDF