In a scathing rebuke that cut through courtroom protocol, the Delhi High Court pulled up both the trial court and the police for their startling lack of sensitivity toward a young rape survivor caught in the gears of the legal process.
The case involved a minor girl who, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, should have received the system’s utmost care. Instead, when she was too unwell to attend a court hearing in person, her request for exemption was met not with compassion—but with suspicion.
The trial court had tasked the station house officer of Shalimar Bagh to verify her illness. The very next day, a male constable turned up at the victim’s doorstep. The High Court was not amused.
“A victim summoned to court to testify about sexual violence is essentially being asked to relive her trauma. It is hardly surprising if that leads to physical symptoms like fever or stomach distress,” the Court observed, visibly disturbed by how lightly the trial court took her condition. “This is not some hardened criminal requesting a favour.”
Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the matter, emphasized what should have been obvious: a child survivor of sexual assault is not a defendant, and her right to dignity and care cannot be treated as a procedural inconvenience.
“The intersectionality of being a girl child and a survivor of sexual violence demands heightened sensitivity—not bureaucratic checkboxing,” the Court remarked, taking issue with the mechanical and impersonal response of the trial court. What made matters worse was the fact that, despite the court’s directive to the investigating officer or SHO, a male constable was dispatched instead—an act the High Court found “extremely appalling.”
By the time the issue came up for review on March 20, neither the investigating officer nor the SHO had bothered to appear. The Court demanded an explanation and a detailed report from the Assistant Commissioner of Police.
The matter emerged during a bail hearing for two men accused of raping the minor girl after allegedly drugging her. During the hearing, the High Court examined two troubling orders from the trial court dated March 18 and 19, both reflecting a rigid insistence on the girl’s physical appearance despite clear signs of her distress.
While the High Court acknowledged that the lower court may have been operating under a prior directive to expedite the trial, it made one thing clear: speed cannot come at the expense of humanity.
“Expeditious proceedings are essential—but they should not steamroll the well-being of the very victim whose case is being heard,” the Court said. “A trial cannot be so blind to suffering that it treats the survivor like the accused.”
The case will next be heard on April 22.
