Published 08:29 IST, November 3rd 2020
Gender sensitisation in Judicial academies need of the hour: AG KK Venugopal
Attorney General KK Venugopal said that there is a dire need for gender sensitisation and educating judges on the importance of focusing on facts.
While addressing a Supreme Court bench, Attorney General KK Venugopal said that there is a dire need for gender sensitisation and educating judges on the importance of focusing on facts while imposing bail conditions. This came as the bench was hearing an appeal against an order by a Madhya Pradesh High Court that granted bail to an accused in a sexual assault case with a condition that he would request the complainant to tie him a 'rakhi'. AG Venugopal expressed his displeasure with regards to the order while adding that such orders in case of a sexual assault are 'drama'. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna and was headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar.
"Focus on facts"
The top law officer stated that the national and state judicial academies should educate the judges that this is not 'permissible' while adding that the recruitment examination for the Judges' should have an entire portion on gender sensitisation.
Attorney General KK Venugopal said, "Orders in sexual assault cases which ask an accused to get a 'rakhi' tied from the victim are drama. So far as the present case is concerned, it seems they (the Judges) have been carried away. There are already judgements that judges have to restrict themselves to the fact of matter, especially bail conditions. In the judicial academy, top court judgements should be taught and put before trial courts and the high court so judges know what needs to be done."
"Give a note": SC Bench
The Supreme Court bench stated that 'gender sensitisation' will be a part of its order after AG Venugopal stressed the need for it. The bench further asked the AG and other lawyers appearing in the case to submit a short note on the bail conditions that could be made a part of the judicial order.
"Give a note on what can be done and what cannot be done. The attorney general, petitioner and intervenors can file note. List after three weeks on November 27. The discretion on bail conditions needs to be seen… what is permissible and what is not permissible. This is one way of doing it. In the judgement, we can say what needs to be done," said the Supreme Court bench.
Plea against MP High Court Order
The Madhya Pradesh High court had granted bail to the accused in a sexual assault case and imposed a condition under which he was instructed to visit the house of the petitioner along with his wife and request her to tie him a 'rakhi' and promise to protect her to the 'best of his ability for all time to come'. Following the order, an appeal was filed by nine women lawyer seeking a stay on the bail conditions imposed on the accused as per the order dated July 30, stating that courts across India should be restrained from imposing such bail conditions as it is 'against the principle of law'. The petitioners also told the apex court that the victim's trauma was trivialised by such conditions which is why the appeal was filed in an 'extraordinary circumstance'. Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh along with lawyer Aparna Bhat appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
"Substantial questions of law, including whether in a case seeking bail it is appropriate for a court to impose extraneous conditions which allow contact between the accused and the complainant, are involved in the matter. Whether the bail condition which is impugned herein stands to further victimize the complainant and trivialise the trauma that she has suffered. Whether the above-mentioned bail condition is in line with the principles that govern trials within the criminal justice system?" said the plea.
(With inputs from PTI)
Updated 08:29 IST, November 3rd 2020