The Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 26, stayed the controversial ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which stated that groping a minor’s breasts and pulling her pyjama strings do not constitute rape or an attempt to rape, but rather an "aggravated sexual assault" under the POCSO Act. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on March 17, sparked nationwide outrage and raised serious questions about legal interpretations regarding sexual violence.
However, this is not the first time Justice Mishra has found himself at the center of controversy.
Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra?
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra currently serves as the Administrative Judge for the Balrampur District in the Allahabad High Court. A law graduate from 1985 with a postgraduate degree in 1987, he entered the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service in 1990 as a Munsif. Over the years, he rose through the ranks, being promoted to the Higher Judicial Service in 2005.
His career saw him serving as the District and Sessions Judge in Baghpat and Aligarh. Later, he held the position of Director at the Judicial Training & Research Institute in Lucknow before being elevated to the Allahabad High Court. Mishra took oath as an Additional Judge on August 15, 2022, and was confirmed as a Permanent Judge in September 2023.
A Pattern of Controversial Rulings
Justice Mishra has delivered multiple judgments that have sparked debate and criticism, questioning his approach to legal precedents in cases involving sexual crimes.
1. The 'Breast Verdict' in the Kasganj Child Assault Case
The most recent ruling under scrutiny stems from a 2021 case in Uttar Pradesh's Kasganj, where two men, Pawan and Akash, allegedly assaulted an 11-year-old girl and attempted to drag her under a culvert before fleeing after bystanders intervened. The accused were initially charged with rape and violations under the POCSO Act. However, when they challenged the charges in the Allahabad High Court, Justice Mishra ruled that their actions did not amount to rape or even an attempt to rape, reducing the charges to "aggravated sexual assault."
This decision was met with widespread outrage, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene on March 26, calling the ruling “shocking” and staying its implementation.
2. Marital Rape Controversy: Dismissing Section 377 Charges
Justice Mishra’s judicial philosophy on sexual violence was again questioned in a ruling where he acquitted a man accused of forcing unnatural sexual acts on his wife. He dismissed the charges under IPC Section 377 (unnatural offences), citing that marital rape is not recognized as a crime in India if the wife is 18 or older.
This judgment reignited the debate over marital consent and the lack of legal protections for married women against sexual violence. The case involved Sanjeev Gupta, who was accused of subjecting his wife to repeated sexual abuse. While Mishra’s court struck down the charges under Section 377, it upheld his conviction under IPC Section 498A (dowry harassment and cruelty) and Section 323 (causing hurt).
Justice Mishra justified his ruling by stating that the recently enacted Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), does not include Section 377. His verdict echoed a similar ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which suggested that amendments to IPC Section 375 (rape) after 2013 covered all forms of penetration in marriage, making Section 377 irrelevant in such cases.
Public Backlash and Legal Repercussions
The judgments delivered by Justice Mishra have ignited fierce debates in legal and activist circles. Critics argue that his interpretations undermine legal protections for sexual assault victims, particularly women and minors. The Supreme Court’s swift intervention in the Kasganj case reflects growing concern over judicial decisions that appear to downplay the severity of sexual crimes.
