LLM Notes: Sexual Abuse as a Serious Offense and Violation of Human Rights: Leading Supreme Court Judgments {Part 2}

Sexual abuse represents one of the most heinous crimes against human dignity. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that sexual assault violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, including the right to life, dignity, equality, and personal liberty. This compilation presents landmark judgments categorized thematically for easy understanding and memorization.​

Foundational Principle: Rape as Violation of Fundamental Rights

Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty (1996)

This is the cornerstone judgment establishing that rape violates constitutional rights.

Key Holdings:

• Rape is not merely a crime under the Indian Penal Code—it is a violation of the fundamental right to life and personal dignity under Article 21.
  ​

• The Supreme Court declared that rape is a "crime against the entire society" and destroys the entire psychology of a woman, pushing her into deep emotional crisis.​

• The Court established its power to award interim compensation to rape victims under Article 32 even during pendency of criminal proceedings​

• The judgment stated: "Rape is the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights."​

Easy Memory Point: "Bodhisattwa = Body's Right" – First case declaring rape as violation of bodily rights under Article 21

Chairman, Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das (2000)

This case extended constitutional protection to non-citizens and connected rape with international human rights instruments.

Facts: A Bangladeshi woman was gang-raped by railway employees at Howrah Railway Station.​

Key Holdings:

• Article 21 protection extends to non-citizens – the fundamental right to life with dignity is available to all persons within Indian territory​

• The Court read Article 21 in consonance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the Declaration on Elimination of Violence Against Women​

• Rape itself violates fundamental rights of women including the right to live with human dignity​

• The State was held liable to pay compensation under public law for violation of fundamental rights by its employees​

Easy Memory Point: "Chandrima = Constitution for All" – Article 21 applies to everyone including foreigners

Victim's Testimony and Dignity in Rape Trials

State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996)

This landmark judgment revolutionized how courts evaluate testimony in rape cases.

Key Holdings:

• A rape victim's testimony, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction without corroboration.​

• The Court observed: "No self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour"​

• Courts must not cast aspersions on the victim's character or fixate on minor inconsistencies.​

• The judgment criticized the trial court for describing the victim as a girl with "loose morals" – such characterization was condemned​

• Passive submission due to fear is NOT consent​

Easy Memory Point: "Gurmit = Girl's Word Matters" – Victim's testimony alone can convict

State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991)

This case established that a woman's character is irrelevant in sexual assault cases.

Facts: A police inspector attempted to sexually exploit a woman named Banubi. The High Court questioned her credibility based on her perceived "character."​

Key Holdings:

• Every woman, irrespective of her sexual history or societal status, has the right to dignity, privacy, and protection​

• The character of a woman is irrelevant in determining whether sexual misconduct occurred​

• Even a woman of "easy virtue" is entitled to bodily integrity and any violation must be treated seriously​

• The Court stated: "No one has the right to invade the physical frame of another"​

Easy Memory Point: "Mardikar = Morality No Bar" – Character evidence inadmissible against victim

Lillu @ Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2013)

This judgment banned the two-finger test as violative of human rights.

Key Holdings:

• The two-finger test violates the right to privacy, physical and mental integrity, and dignity of rape survivors​

• This test is patriarchal and sexist – a woman cannot be disbelieved simply because she is sexually active​

• The Court referred to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 and UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims​

• Past sexual experience is irrelevant to the question of consent​

Easy Memory Point: "Lillu = Liberty from Degrading Tests" – Two-finger test abolished

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO Cases)

Attorney General for India vs. Satish (2021)

This judgment overturned the controversial "skin-to-skin" judgment of Bombay High Court.

Facts: The Bombay High Court had acquitted an accused holding that pressing a child's breast without "skin-to-skin contact" does not amount to sexual assault under POCSO.​

Key Holdings:

• Section 7 of POCSO covers both direct and indirect touch – skin-to-skin contact is NOT required for sexual assault​

• The key element is "sexual intent" not the nature of physical contact​

• The High Court's interpretation would trivialize and legitimize unwelcome behavior against children​

• The POCSO Act must be interpreted to protect children's dignity and autonomy​

Easy Memory Point: "Attorney General = Against Technicalities" – Intent matters, not skin contact

Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India (2018)

This case established comprehensive guidelines for protecting victim's identity.

Key Holdings:

• No person can disclose the name or identity of rape victims in any media (print, electronic, or social)​

• Even if the victim is dead or of unsound mind, identity cannot be disclosed without judicial approval​

• FIRs for offences under Sections 376 and related provisions cannot be made public

• All States/UTs must establish One-Stop Centres in every district for rape victims​

• Disclosure of rape victim's identity is a criminal offence under Section 228A IPC​

Easy Memory Point: "Nipun = No Publishing Names" – Victim identity must be protected

Alakh Alok Srivastava vs. Union of India (2018)

Guidelines for speedy trial under POCSO Act.

Key Holdings:

• POCSO trials must be completed within one year from cognizance​

• Special Courts must be constituted with trained presiding officers

• Child-friendly environment must be created in courts

• Three-judge committee to monitor POCSO cases in each High Court

• Special Task Force by DGP for proper investigation​

Easy Memory Point: "Alakh Alok = Always Complete within Year" – One-year timeline for POCSO trials

---

Marital Rape and Child Marriage

Independent Thought vs. Union of India (2017)

This historic judgment partially recognized marital rape by striking down Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.

Facts: The exception allowed sexual intercourse with a wife aged 15-18 years as legal.

• Sexual intercourse with a minor wife (below 18 years) is rape, regardless of marital status.​

• Exception 2 was held arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21​

• Child marriage violates human rights of the child and is detrimental to her overall welfare​

• The Court applied harmonious construction to read down the exception​

Easy Memory Point: "Independent Thought = In Marriage Too, 18 is the Line" – No exception for child brides

Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)

The foundation case for laws against sexual harassment at workplace.

Background: Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was gang-raped for preventing child marriage. The Rajasthan High Court acquitted the accused.​

Key Holdings:

• Sexual harassment violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution​

• The Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines which remained in force until the 2013 Act:

  • Definition of sexual harassment (physical contact, demand for favors, sexually colored remarks, pornography, unwelcome conduct)​

  • Duty of employer to prevent sexual harassment

  • Complaints mechanism through Complaints Committee

• International Conventions are significant for interpretation of constitutional guarantees​

Easy Memory Point: "Vishaka = Vital Shield Against Harassment" – Guidelines for workplace safety

Bail Conditions and Gender Sensitization

Aparna Bhat vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

This judgment addressed patriarchal bail conditions in sexual assault cases.

Facts: The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail on condition that the accused visit the victim's house and get her to tie rakhi on him.​

Key Holdings:

• Courts must not impose arbitrary conditions that expose survivors to secondary trauma​

• No patriarchal or stereotypical reasoning should be used in bail orders​

• Courts should not encourage marriage between accused and victim as compromise​

• Gender sensitization curriculum should be included in law schools and judicial training​

• The verdict must not reflect bias or stereotype of the judge​

Easy Memory Point: "Aparna = Against Patriarchal Attitudes" – No rakhi, no compromise, no stereotypes

---

The Nirbhaya Case: Rarest of Rare

Mukesh vs. State of NCT Delhi (2017)

The most significant case on gang rape and death penalty.

Facts: On December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old paramedic student was brutally gang-raped and murdered in a moving bus in Delhi.​

Key Holdings:

• The case falls within "rarest of rare" category warranting death penalty​

• The brutality showed complete disregard for human dignity​

• DNA evidence, blood traces, and witness testimonies were sufficient for conviction​

• The Court emphasized the barbaric and heinous nature of the crime​

• Death penalty upheld for four convicts as a deterrent​

Aftermath:

• Led to Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

• Two-finger test abolished

• Stricter punishments for rape

• Death penalty for repeat offenders and gang rape causing death​

Easy Memory Point: "Mukesh/Nirbhaya = Most Extreme Punishment" – Rarest of rare doctrine applied

Mathura Case: The Catalyst for Reform

Tukaram vs. State of Maharashtra (1979)

Though criticized, this case ultimately catalyzed major rape law reforms.

Facts: Mathura, a young tribal girl (14-16 years), was raped by two policemen inside a police station. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused.​

Problematic Reasoning:

• The Court held that absence of injury marks meant no resistance, hence consent​

• The Court stated since she "raised no alarm," she consented​

• The Court observed she was "habituated to sexual intercourse"​

Impact:

• Led to massive protests and women's rights movements

• Resulted in Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983:

  • Custodial rape made a separate offense with higher punishment

  • Burden of proof shifted to accused in custodial rape cases

  • In camera trials mandated

​Easy Memory Point: "Tukaram = Tremendous Reform" – Bad law led to good amendments

Summary Table for Quick Revision

Case Name	Year	Key Principle	Memory Hook
Bodhisattwa Gautam	1996	Rape violates Article 21	"Body's Right"​
Chandrima Das	2000	Article 21 applies to foreigners	"Constitution for All"​
Gurmit Singh	1996	Victim testimony sufficient	"Girl's Word Matters"​
Mardikar	1991	Character evidence inadmissible	"Morality No Bar"​
Lillu	2013	Two-finger test banned	"Liberty from Tests"​
Vishaka	1997	Workplace harassment guidelines	"Vital Shield"​
Independent Thought	2017	Marital rape with minor = rape	"18 is the Line"​
Nipun Saxena	2018	Victim identity protection	"No Publishing Names"​
Attorney General vs Satish	2021	No skin-to-skin required	"Against Technicalities"​
Aparna Bhat	2021	No patriarchal bail conditions	"Against Patriarchy"​
Mukesh (Nirbhaya)	2017	Rarest of rare doctrine	"Most Extreme"​
Tukaram (Mathura)	1979	Led to 1983 amendments	"Bad to Good Law"​

Key Constitutional Articles to Remember

• Article 14: Right to Equality – No discrimination against victims

• Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination – Gender justice

• Article 19(1)(g): Right to Practice Profession – Safe workplace (Vishaka)

• Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Core article for all sexual assault cases

• Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies – Interim compensation possible

Exam Tips for Memorization

Chronological Flow:

1. 1979 – Mathura Case (catalyst for reform)

2. 1991 – Mardikar (character irrelevant)

3. 1996 – Bodhisattwa Gautam (rape = Article 21 violation) + Gurmit Singh (victim testimony)

4. 1997 – Vishaka (workplace guidelines)

5. 2000 – Chandrima Das (foreigners protected)

6. 2013 – Lillu (two-finger test banned)

7. 2017 – Independent Thought (minor wife) + Nirbhaya (death penalty)

8. 2018 – Nipun Saxena (identity protection)

9. 2021 – Attorney General vs Satish (no skin-to-skin) + Aparna Bhat (no rakhi condition)

Three Pillars to Remember:

1. Dignity – Every case affirms victim's right to dignity

2. Article 21 – All cases connect to fundamental right to life

3. International Law – Courts refer to CEDAW, ICCPR, UDHR consistently