Supreme Court Sets Landmark Guidelines on Bail Conditions in Sexual Harassment Cases, Rejects Rakhi-Tying Mandate

SC mandates gender-sensitive judicial conduct, prohibits bail conditions mandating contact between accused and victim, and calls for extensive gender sensitization training for judges and lawyers

In a significant judgment delivered on March 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh has unequivocally condemned the imposition of inappropriate bail conditions in cases of sexual offences against women, especially those that undermine the dignity and trauma of survivors. The Court quashed a bail condition that required an accused in a sexual harassment case to visit the victim’s house to tie a rakhi and offer gifts, terming it wholly unacceptable and detrimental to the seriousness of such offences.

The case arose when the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused facing charges under Sections 452, 354A (sexual harassment), 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code but imposed a condition compelling the accused to participate in a customary Raksha Bandhan ritual with the complainant. Public-spirited appellants challenged this condition, arguing that it trivialized the offence and subjected the victim to further trauma.

The Supreme Court, led by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, emphasized that bail conditions must be legal, relevant, and aimed at protecting the complainant from further harassment. The Court outlined comprehensive guidelines to prevent judicial stereotyping and patriarchal biases in criminal proceedings involving gender-related crimes. Key directives include:

1. Bail conditions must never mandate or permit contact between the accused and the victim, to protect the complainant from harassment.

2. Courts should consider appropriate protective measures if there is any potential threat to the victim, including consulting the police.

3. The complainant should be immediately informed when bail is granted, with a copy of the bail order provided within two days.

4. Bail conditions and judicial orders should avoid any stereotypical or patriarchal notions about women, including irrelevant references to the victim’s dress, behavior, or past conduct.

5. Courts must not entertain or suggest compromises such as marriage between the accused and victim, as these are beyond judicial powers and undermine women’s dignity.

6. Judges are urged to exercise sensitivity throughout proceedings to avoid retraumatizing survivors or undermining their confidence in judicial impartiality.

7. The Supreme Court mandated the inclusion of gender sensitization modules in the foundational training for all judges and lawyers, with the National Judicial Academy tasked with developing appropriate curricula in consultation with experts.

The Court took judicial cognizance of the pervasive problem of victim-blaming and stereotyping in sexual offence cases, highlighting troubling precedents where courts have allowed bail based on compromises or made derogatory remarks about the prosecutrix’s character. It underscored the need for the judiciary to discard archaic, misogynistic attitudes that continue to affect women’s access to justice.

Highlighting international perspectives, the judgment referenced rulings of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, reiterating that judicial stereotyping constitutes a barrier to justice for women victims.

The Court also called upon the Bar Council of India to incorporate gender sensitization and sexual offence laws into law school curricula and the All India Bar Examination. It urged each High Court to formulate judicial sensitivity modules to be tested in Judicial Services Examinations.

By setting aside the impugned bail condition that mandated the accused to tie a rakhi, the Supreme Court sent a clear message that the criminal justice system must uphold the dignity, safety, and rights of survivors without perpetuating harmful stereotypes or trivializing sexual offences. The judgment marks a vital step toward ensuring gender justice and fostering a more empathetic, impartial judiciary.

Statutory provisions

Indian Penal Code Sections 452, 354A, 323, 506; Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 437(3)(c), 438(2)(iv)

---

This report provides a detailed summary of the Supreme Court’s judgment and its far-reaching implications for judicial conduct and gender justice in India.

Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1819954