India’s higher judiciary has delivered two contrasting rulings that underscore differing interpretations of what constitutes rape and attempt to rape, reflecting how judicial reasoning continues to shape the understanding of women’s bodily integrity and sexual offences.
On one side, the Supreme Court intervened to overturn a controversial judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had held that grabbing a minor’s breasts did not amount to rape or an attempt to rape. The apex court set aside the ruling and took suo motu cognisance after widespread criticism, stressing the need for greater sensitivity in cases involving sexual violence against children.
The Allahabad High Court ruling arose from a March 2025 case involving two accused who assaulted an 11-year-old girl. While a trial court had framed charges of rape and invoked provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the High Court diluted the charges, saying there was no intent to commit rape.
The Supreme Court stayed the order and later directed the National Judicial Academy to frame guidelines to ensure compassion and sensitivity in handling sexual offence cases.
In contrast, the Chhattisgarh High Court, in a February ruling, held that ejaculation without penetration amounts to an attempt to commit rape and not rape. The case related to an allegation from 2004, where the survivor stated that the accused did not penetrate her. Relying on medical evidence and inconsistencies in testimony, the court modified the conviction and reduced the sentence.
Together, the rulings highlight how interpretations by different courts can significantly affect outcomes in sexual offence cases. They also show that even with medical evidence, survivors often remain dependent on judicial interpretation to determine whether an act is classified as rape or an attempt.