Gujarat HC Seeks "Compromise" Between Rape Accused And Minor Survivor

Gujarat High Court Justice Samir Dave was recently in the news for making a comment on Manusmriti while hearing a petition by a minor rape survivor seeking medical termination of pregnancy. Justice Dave has made yet another controversial remark while hearing a 16-year-old rape survivor’s plea for medical termination of pregnancy.

While hearing the minor girl’s petition, Justice Dave asked if there was a possibility of a compromise between the survivor and the accused, as it could save three lives. He directed that the imprisoned rape accused be produced in court on Friday to determine whether a compromise was possible.

Suggested Reading: ‘Girls Used To Give Birth Before 17’: Why Is Gujarat HC Statement On Minor Abortion Problematic

Compromise Between Rapist And Survivor

The advocate representing the minor girl stated that the family wasn’t willing to keep the baby in case the court refused to allow the medical termination of the pregnancy, although there might be many people willing to adopt. The advocate further noted that his concern was the age of the minor girl, and even though it might be possible for the foetus to be healthy, it might not survive. The advocate also cited the example of the Delhi High Court judgement that permitted the termination of a 27-week pregnancy.

Following the minor girl’s advocate’s submission, Justice Dave asked where the rape accused was, and the advocate replied that he was in prison. Then Justice Dave asked if there was any chance to compromise, and the advocate said that, as an officer of the court, he had tried but found that there was no chance of compromise. Justice Dave then ordered the accused to appear in court at 4 p.m. on Friday and said that he would talk to him.

The additional public prosecutor at this point said that the judge's queries were "pragmatic." He said that "something said in good faith was unnecessarily taken the other way," citing Justice Dave’s comment on Manusmriti, which received severe criticism from the public.

Responding to the APP, Justice Dave then quoted the Bhagavad Gita and said that "a judge must be like Sthitapragna", meaning that both praise and criticism should be ignored.

Shouldn't Judges Be Mindful Of Their Remarks?

Is the courtroom becoming a Sanskrit classroom? Why is the judge repeatedly citing references to religious texts so precisely while the legal system is supposed to rely on logical, rational, and evidence-based information? Statements coming from a court are powerful enough to have a long-lasting influence on society.

Also, one judge’s statement can be used as a precedent and cited in another case elsewhere. Hence, it’s crucial that the judges are conscious of the remarks. Judges need to be sensitive and considerate towards the welfare of women and society at large before commenting on pleas. Such statements coming from a high court judge are highly concerning for the very reason that they can have a negative impact on society and potentially be detrimental to women.

Keeping aside the fact that religious texts were quoted, the main issue is how the legal system can even consider a compromise between a rapist and the survivor, who in this case is a minor. Rape is a horrifying crime that can leave an ever-lasting emotional scar and trauma on the survivor. They might never be able to lead a normal life again! It’s unimaginable for a 16-year-old child to have gone through such a traumatic event, and now considering a compromise is entirely unacceptable.

Wouldn't this be a case under the POCSO Act, and the accused should be punished with the harshest punishment possible to serve as a precedent in society? The only way to prevent paedophiles from committing sexual crimes against children is to enforce stricter laws, but if our legal system is prepared to consider "compromise" in a crime like this, what kind of safety do our children have?

Views expressed by the author are their own