DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR

GENDER JUSTICE AND FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE

PROJECT
(SESSION OF 2023-24)

A JUDICIAL WORD TOWARDS WOMEN

EMPOWERMENT: APARNA BHAT V. THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MRS. SRISHTI YADAV SANSKRATI JAIN

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SEMESTER- VIII

DNLU, JABALPUR ROLL NO: 116

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this project required counselling and assistance from many people and I’m really
thankful towards them for their counselling in my project.

I would like to express my deep gratitude towards my teacher asst. professor Mrs. Srishti Yadav who
took acute interest in my project and guided me all along. I am feeling extremely privileged to have
her as my instructor in the project. I owe my deep gratitude to the Vice-Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) Manoj
Kumar Sinha for his valuable support throughout the project. This project helped me in gathering a lot
of knowledge and becoming more aware of things related to my topic.

I would like to extend my gratefulness to my parents and friends for their valuable support and advice.

I am making this project not only to get marks but also to enhance my knowledge. At the end I would
like thank everyone who helped me and invested their valuable time for this project.

Sanskrati Jain

BAL/116/20
 A JUDICIAL WORD TOWARDS WOMEN EMPOWERMENT
Aparna Bhat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The victims of sexual assault have usually been blamed by Indian society. Women have been
questioned constantly about their behaviour, clothing choices, mood, and when they plan to move out
of their homes. During trials, judges have frequently reinforced this practise by interrogating the victim
and making statements that stereotype particular behaviours while also threatening to disrupt the trial.
With the Supreme Court openly criticising such behaviour on the part of the courts, optimism for
judicial reform has been reignited.

Lately, in the case of Vikram v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, while granting bail to the accused under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, the Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed a number of conditions on which
the bail was given. In the case of Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, one of such bail conditions
was challenged and declared to be arbitrary, and so annulled by the Supreme Court. In the matter at
hand the accused was asked along with his wife to visit the complainant and request her to tie him a
Rakhi or a thread and promise to protect her to the best of his abilities. He was also asked to pay her a
sum of Rs 11,000 as a customary ritual and Rs 5,000 to her son in order to purchase clothes and
sweets. These kind of observations by the High Courts and trial courts tend trivialise the victim's pain
and diminish their dignity. This kind of orders encourage the abhorrent compromises majorly in form
of marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix in sexual assault and rape cases.

Supreme Court Redefines Bail Terms for Sexual Assault Cases

It is a step forward in recognising the situation of women who have been sexually assaulted. Arbitrary
bail terms, which can further traumatise the victim, were abolished in this historic decision. The
Supreme Court did a lot more than simply decide a single issue in this decision. The court also laid
certain guidelines for judges to be followed while granting bails to the accused of sexual
harassment/assaults and rape cases.

The Appellants in the present case cited the case of Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar3, State of
M.P v. Madanlal4 and Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 and argued that they should to be followed
by every court while considering and dealing with bail applications. In all above-mentioned cases the
court clearly held that in cases of sexual offences, the idea of compromise, especially in the form of

1
Vikram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No. 23350/2020
2
Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1492
3
Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar (2018) 16 SCC 74
4
State of M.P v. Madanlal (2015) 7 SCC 681
5
Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570
marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix is abhorrent, and should not be considered a judicial
remedy, as it would be antithetical to the woman’s honour and dignity.

Similarly, the case of Ramphal v. State of Haryana6 was cited, in which the court noted the settlement
between the survivor and the accused is irrelevant when evaluating rape and sexual assault cases.
Appellants said that judges granted bail on the plea that an agreement to marry had been reached
between the accused and prosecutrix. The appellants also submitted that while adjudicating matters of
sexual harassment and rape, judges have made shocking remarks on the character of the prosecuting
officer.

The appellants further urged that no judge should make any remarks or observations in the ruling that
would reflect their prejudices and harm the woman's dignity. In circumstances of sexual assault, no
such restriction should be imposed that permits the applicant to see the complainant or her family
members. The court was requested to provide gender sensitization directives for the bar and bench, as
well as law students. Also, under Sections 437 and 438 of the Cr.P.C, the court was asked to set
instructions on legally feasible bail terms.

Empowering Justice: Supreme Court's Guidelines

The Supreme Court in the said judgement commended the petitioner for his insightful ideas and
overturned the Madhya Pradesh High Court's bail terms. The court has also framed certain guidelines
in this regard. It also agreed to the recommendations for a gender sensitization curriculum in law
schools, as well as for the bar exam and introduction training for newly appointed judges. The Supreme
Court began its decision by quoting Henrik Ibsen, who discussed how women struggle to be
themselves in an exclusively masculine society and how the justice system analyses feminine
behaviour from a masculine perspective. It broadened the scope of the case to include the problem of
sexual assault survivors who have been misunderstood and let down by not just society, but,
paradoxically, the legal system as well. This decision can serve as a force to raise awareness of the
court system, which has imposed conditions that are harmful to women's dignity and honour.

Despite the fact that the law requires a connection between the aim and purpose of the bail order, as
well as that the order not harass the individual or infringe on any of their constitutional rights, courts
have frequently overstepped their bounds in using their judicial discretion. In this instance, the
Supreme Court has set a number of guidelines for justices to follow when granting bail in sexual assault
cases.

6
Ramphal v. State of Haryana, in the Supreme Court of India Crl. A. No. 438/2011 Decided On 27.11.2019
Following is the brief of the guidelines for judges granting bail in sexual assault cases: -
• Contact between the accused and the complainant or her family members should not be mandated
or required by the bail terms.
• If the court believes the victim is in danger, the court may order the victim to be protected.
• If the offender is granted bail, the complainant should be informed as soon as possible. It's also a
good idea to have a copy of the bail order with you.
• The finding granting bail should be limited to the Cr.P.C and should not reflect any stereotype or
bias on the part of the court, and no remarks about the complainant's conduct, clothing choice,
morality, or behaviour should be made.
• The court should not foster any type of connection between the accused and the complainant, such
as giving release because they are planning to marry. It should also not compel or advise mediation
in situations of rape and sexual assault because this is outside the authority of the court.
• The judge should be attentive to the prosecutrix and protect her from emotional distress during the
proceedings.
• Such statements, which have the potential to shatter the victim's faith in the impartiality of the
judicial system, should not be said by the judge.

The Call for Judicial Integrity

The legislative, executive, and judiciary are the pillars of government that support society's soul. For
society to prosper, it is critical that these pillars uphold the goals for which they were created. By
issuing this decision and expressing sorrow for the paternalistic and sexist attitudes shown in past court
rulings, the Supreme Court kindled optimism for the healthy progress of society and demonstrated that
justice is still served at its doorstep. Extraneous declarations and directives, such as those given in the
current case, might create an unfavourable precedent and, as a result, should be completely excluded
from court pronouncements, regardless of the judge's personal prejudice. Judicial stereotyping is an
evil that must be combated jointly.

The arbitrary requirement set by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not the first of its kind; similar
rulings have been issued in the past, shocking the social fabric. As a result, the Supreme Court's
instructions are a positive move that should serve as a deterrence to all future judgements. Judges play
an important role in society, and their decisions are read by a wide range of people, including law
students, scholars, attorneys, parties to the case, and the general public. This emphasises the need of
carefully considering and presenting these assessments, which should be free of prejudice. They should
be accountable and set within the parameters of the constitution.
Upholding Dignity: A Paradigm Shift in Gender Justice
In conclusion, the recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya
Pradesh7 marks a significant stride forward in the pursuit of gender justice and the application of
feminist jurisprudence within the Indian legal system. This landmark decision not only overturned
arbitrary bail conditions but also laid down crucial guidelines for judges to follow in sexual assault
cases, thereby reaffirming the dignity and rights of survivors.

The author's perspective, as evident throughout the text, underscores the entrenched biases and
patriarchal attitudes that have historically permeated legal proceedings involving sexual assault. The
prevalent victim-blaming culture, perpetuated by societal norms and sometimes even reinforced by the
judiciary, has long undermined the experiences and agency of survivors, further exacerbating their
trauma.

By addressing the issue head-on and condemning the imposition of demeaning bail conditions, the
Supreme Court has taken a firm stand against practices that trivialize the severity of sexual violence
and compromise the integrity of survivors. Moreover, the court's endorsement of gender sensitization
initiatives for legal professionals and the acknowledgment of the need for comprehensive training
underscore a commitment to fostering a more equitable and empathetic legal framework.

Towards a Just Future

The guidelines outlined by the Supreme Court serve as a crucial blueprint for future judicial
proceedings, emphasizing the importance of upholding the constitutional rights and dignity of
survivors above all else. Prohibiting coercive contact between the accused and the complainant,
refraining from making derogatory remarks or perpetuating stereotypes, and prioritizing the emotional
well-being of survivors during legal proceedings are essential steps towards creating a more inclusive
and just legal system.

Furthermore, the recognition of feminist principles within jurisprudence highlights the imperative to
challenge and dismantle systemic inequalities that perpetuate gender-based violence and
discrimination. By centring the experiences and voices of survivors, the legal system can better fulfil
its mandate to deliver justice and redress harm, thereby fostering a society that values and upholds the
rights of all individuals, regardless of gender.

The author's call for accountability and adherence to constitutional principles resonates deeply within
the context of gender justice. Judges, as custodians of justice, wield immense power and influence,

7
Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1492
and it is incumbent upon them to exercise their authority with integrity, empathy, and a commitment
to upholding the principles of equality and dignity for all.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision, it is imperative for legal practitioners, scholars, and society
at large to reflect critically on prevailing attitudes and practices surrounding sexual assault and to work
towards creating a more just and inclusive legal landscape. Through collective action and a steadfast
commitment to feminist principles, we can strive towards a future where survivors are heard, respected,
and afforded the justice they deserve.

Ultimately, the judgment in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh8 represents not only a legal
milestone but also a moral imperative—a reaffirmation of our collective responsibility to challenge
gender-based violence and uphold the principles of equality, dignity, and justice for all. As we continue
on this journey towards a more equitable society, let us remain vigilant, courageous, and unwavering
in our commitment to gender justice and the empowerment of survivors.

8
Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1492