When a survivor of sexual violence steps into a courtroom, she carries with her not only the weight of trauma but also the fragile hope that justice will acknowledge her pain. But what happens when the very institution meant to protect her instead turns her into the accused?

On April 15, the Supreme Court of India had to once again called out a lower court the Allahabad High Court, for its disturbing regressive observation that a rape victim had "invited trouble." 

In another case from the Bombay High Court, a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor was granted bail with the reasoning that the child "had sufficient knowledge" and had joined him "voluntarily." 

These aren't isolated missteps. They are part of a larger, more dangerous pattern, the repeated failure of the judiciary to approach sexual violence with the sensitivity it demands.

The most upsetting example is the Allahabad High Court's observation that grabbing a woman’s breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her pyjamas did not amount to attempted rape. The Supreme Court stayed this order, labelling the statement as "highly insensitive." 

But the question here is: Why are such remarks being made in the first place?

Every time a judge says that a minor understood the nature of sexual acts or that a survivor provoked her assailant, it shifts the burden of proof and shame onto the victim. It’s not just poor legal reasoning; it’s an institutional betrayal. 

We have long been told that the courtroom is a space for facts, law, and impartiality. But these instances suggest that patriarchal conditioning doesn’t stop at the gates of our rooms for justice. When judges make remarks that echo society’s worst stereotypes, that a woman's clothing, behaviour, or sexual history defines her credibility, they are not merely failing their constitutional duties. They are actively harming survivors.

The issue is not limited to flawed verdicts or problematic interpretations, it's also about the mindset of those who deliver them. If our judges are not able to understand trauma, consent, and power, how can they adjudicate cases that move around them?

It is not enough for the top court to express “displeasure” after the fact. We need proactive, institutional reform.

When courts dismiss or diminish the lived experience of sexual assault survivors, the impact goes far beyond the individual case. Victims lose faith in the system. Families are silenced. And potential survivors, those thinking about speaking up, chose to stay quiet out of fear. 

A judicial system that blames victims not only fails to deliver justice but also forces a culture of silence that allows gender violence to thrive.

We must ask: justice for whom? Because if it’s not for the survivor, then what purpose does it serve?

India has plenty of laws meant to protect women. But laws are only as effective as the people who interpret them. It’s time our judges, too, were held accountable not just for what they rule, but for what they say.

Justice isn't just about verdicts. It's about dignity. And right now, too many women are being left without a voice inside the courtroom. 

 

You might also be interested in - Time for Change: Why women's equal representation in politics matters now