The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed an Allahabad High Court ruling that held that grabbing a woman’s breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her pyjama did not amount to rape, underlining the observations as “totally insensitive” and “inhuman”.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih passed the order while taking suo motu cognisance of the matter after the contentious ruling was brought to the notice of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna by We the Women of India, an NGO.

“It is a serious matter. Total insensitiveness on the part of the judge. This was at the stage of issuing summons! We are sorry to use such harsh words against the judge,” Justice Gavai, heading the bench, observed at the commencement of the hearing while referring to Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra’s March 17 verdict in connection with an assault on a minor in which he dropped the rape charge.

“In normal circumstances, we are slow in granting stay at this stage. But since the observations in paragraphs 21, 24 and 26 are totally unknown to canons of law and depict total insensitive and inhuman approach, we are inclined to stay the said observations,” the Supreme Court added.

The bench issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and the parties before the high court, seeking their responses in the suo motu proceeding.

Attorney-general R. Venkataramani and solicitor-general Tushar Mehta were directed to assist the top court in the matter, which would be next heard on April 15.

The bench directed the registrar (judicial) of the apex court to communicate its order to the registrar of Allahabad High Court following which it would be “immediately” placed before the chief justice there. The high court’s chief justice was urged to examine the matter and take such steps as he deemed proper.

Mehta concurred with the bench and suggested that as the administrative head and master of the roster, the chief justice of Allahabad High Court “should take some steps”, but did not elaborate.

Justice Mishra’s verdict came on a petition filed by two persons challenging the order of a special judge of a Pocso court in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasganj through which they were summoned under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC, among other sections.

The case involved a 14-year-old girl in Kasganj who was attacked on November 10, 2021, by accused Pawan and Akash. The accused had allegedly grabbed her breasts, torn her pyjama string and attempted to drag her under a culvert while she was walking with her mother. The assailants fled when passers-by intervened upon hearing her screams.

Though the trial court had framed charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act and other IPC sections, Justice Mishra had quashed the charges on the ground that the allegations did not amount to rape but rather an offence under IPC Section 354-B (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe).

Justice Mishra had observed that the alleged actions of the accused were not “sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons had determined to commit rape on the victim as apart from these facts no other act is attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim”.

He had added: “The allegation levelled against the accused Pawan and Akash and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case. In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination.”

The judgment had evoked widespread outrage.

Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha member Priyanka Chaturvedi had in a letter on March 21 urged CJI Khanna to “disqualify” Justice Mishra.

The top court on Wednesday observed that it was not a spur-of-the-moment verdict by Justice Mishra.

“The case was reserved on November 13, 2024, and after a period of more than four months, the learned judge has pronounced the judgment. It is thus clear that the learned judge has authored the judgment after due application of mind,” it added.