Supreme Court Emphasizes Prompt Judicial Action and Sensitivity in Cases of Dignity Violations Against Women

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. (2024 INSC 1008), has underscored the judiciary's duty to act promptly and sensitively in cases involving violations of women's dignity. The case revolves around egregious allegations of witchcraft against two women in rural Bihar, leading to severe humiliation, assault, and violation of their fundamental rights.

The judgment reaffirms the constitutional mandate to protect human dignity, especially for women who are often subject to discriminatory practices rooted in superstition and patriarchal norms. It also highlights the responsibility of courts to avoid mechanical decisions that could impede justice, particularly in sensitive cases involving vulnerable victims.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay, lodged a First Information Report (FIR No. 79/2020) on March 4, 2020, against thirteen individuals, including Shrikant Upadhyay and others, under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Witch (Daain) Act. The FIR detailed a harrowing incident where his grandmother was accused of practicing witchcraft, physically assaulted, force-fed human excrement, disrobed, and humiliated publicly. Another female relative was also attacked and disrobed when she intervened to help.

Despite the severity of the allegations, the police investigation resulted in a chargesheet against only one accused, excluding the primary perpetrators named in the FIR. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) took cognizance against all accused, leading the respondents to seek quashing of the cognizance order before the High Court, which granted a stay of proceedings.

Key Issues

The mechanical granting of a stay by the High Court in a case involving serious violations of women's dignity.
The failure of the police to adequately investigate and charge all accused persons named in the FIR.
The larger issue of how allegations of witchcraft and associated violence against women are addressed within the legal system.

Parties Involved

Appellant: Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay, the complainant seeking justice for his grandmother and relative.

Respondents: Shrikant Upadhyay and others, the accused individuals alleged to have committed the offences.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's decision to grant a stay on the trial proceedings without providing substantive reasons, especially in a case involving grave allegations of violations against women. The Court emphasized the importance of expeditious trial processes in cases that infringe upon the dignity and fundamental rights of individuals.

Recognizing the severe impact of such offences on victims and society, the Supreme Court directed that the trial against all accused persons proceed on a day-to-day basis, ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor denied. The Court also highlighted the State's duty to protect vulnerable sections of society and the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referred to several landmark judgments to bolster its reasoning:

K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

"Over the last four decades, our constitutional jurisprudence has recognised the inseparable relationship between protection of life and liberty with dignity... Human dignity is an integral part of the Constitution."

This case established the fundamental right to privacy and underscored the intrinsic link between dignity and individual rights under the Constitution.

Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State Of Bihar 1988 Supp SCC 734

"India is a welfare State... It shows a particular regard for women and children... The right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every Indian citizen."

This judgment highlighted the State's obligation to protect the rights and dignity of women and children, emphasizing their welfare as a constitutional priority.

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608

The Court referred to this case to affirm that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, including protection from humiliation and degradation.

Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017) 7 SCC 780

"In a civilised society male chauvinism has no room... A man should not put his ego or, for that matter, masculinity on a pedestal and abandon the concept of civility."

This judgment condemned gender-based violence and discrimination, reinforcing the need for societal attitudes to evolve towards respecting women's rights and dignity.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's reasoning is anchored in the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, especially Articles 14 (Equality before the law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty).

Violation of Human Dignity

The Court emphasized that dignity is at the core of an individual's existence in society. Any action that undermines a person's dignity is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. The assault and public humiliation of the victims were not only criminal acts but also severe violations of their fundamental rights.

State's Duty and Judicial Responsibility

The Court highlighted the State's obligation to protect citizens, especially vulnerable groups like women in rural areas, from such egregious violations. It criticized the police's inadequate investigation and the High Court's unreasoned stay of proceedings, emphasizing that judicial and investigative authorities must act with greater sensitivity and promptness in such matters.

Rejection of Mechanical Stays

The Court noted that granting a stay of proceedings in a "mechanical and unreasoned manner" is unacceptable, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of human rights violations. Courts must carefully consider the implications of staying criminal proceedings and ensure that justice is not delayed or obstructed.

International Obligations

Referencing international conventions like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and resolutions by the Human Rights Council, the Court reinforced India's commitment to eliminating harmful practices against women, including witchcraft accusations.

Impact on Future Cases and Relevant Law

This judgment sets a significant precedent in multiple ways:

Judicial Approach: It directs lower courts to exercise caution and provide reasoned orders when considering stays in criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving violations of women's dignity.
Expeditious Trials: Mandating day-to-day trials in such sensitive cases emphasizes the need for swift justice to uphold the victims' rights and societal trust in the legal system.
Law Enforcement Accountability: The criticism of the police investigation highlights the necessity for thorough and unbiased investigations, potentially influencing future policing standards and accountability mechanisms.
Awareness and Sensitization: The judgment may encourage legislative and executive actions to address societal issues like witchcraft accusations, leading to education and reform initiatives.

Complex Concepts Simplified

First Information Report (FIR)

An FIR is a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It sets the criminal law in motion and is essential for the investigation to begin.

Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

This section grants the High Court inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is often invoked to quash criminal proceedings that are deemed unjust or baseless.

Cognizance by Magistrate

Taking cognizance means that the magistrate has applied his mind to the suspected commission of an offence with a view to initiating judicial proceedings. In this case, the ACJM took cognizance against all accused based on the material available.

Article 21 of the Constitution

Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to every person. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right expansively to include the right to live with human dignity and all facets that make life meaningful.

Witchcraft Accusations and Legality

Accusations of witchcraft are rooted in superstition and have led to severe human rights violations, particularly against women. Various states in India have enacted laws to prevent and penalize such practices, recognizing their detrimental impact on individuals and society.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. is a pivotal step toward strengthening the legal framework protecting women's dignity and rights. By mandating prompt judicial action and condemning unreasoned stays that impede justice, the Court reasserts the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values.

This judgment serves as a clarion call for the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, and society at large to address harmful practices like witchcraft accusations that disproportionately affect women. It underscores the necessity for sensitivity, thoroughness, and urgency in handling cases involving fundamental human rights violations.

Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, ensuring that the legal system remains a robust guardian of individual rights and societal welfare.