The Hindu: Published on 18th November 2025.
Why in News?
Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai, while reflecting on India’s evolving criminal justice system, strongly condemned the 1979 Supreme Court judgment in the Mathura custodial rape case (Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra). He called it an “institutional embarrassment”, highlighting how the verdict ignored power dynamics, vulnerability, and the real meaning of consent.
This public reflection from the highest judicial office has revived the national conversation about the evolution of rape laws, reforms in criminal law, and the long struggle of women’s rights movements.
Background: The 1972–1979 Mathura Case:
The case concerned a 14–16-year-old Adivasi orphan girl, raped inside a Maharashtra police station by two policemen.
The trial court dismissed her testimony, branding her “habituated to sex.”
The Bombay High Court (1976) overturned this, recognising the clear abuse of authority and absence of real consent.
However, the Supreme Court (1979) acquitted the policemen, reasoning that there were no injuries on her body and the intercourse seemed “peaceful,” equating lack of resistance with consent.
This verdict became a symbol of how the justice system failed the powerless.
A Turning Point in India’s Women’s Rights Movement:
The 1979 acquittal sparked nationwide outrage.
A historic letter by four intellectuals — Upendra Baxi, Vasudha Dhagamwar, Raghunath Kelkar, and Lotika Sarkar — challenged the Supreme Court’s reasoning. They distinguished between consent and submission, pointing out that a poor, young, unprotected girl facing policemen in custody cannot meaningfully consent.
Their letter helped mobilise public opinion, making the case a watershed moment for legal reform.
Evolution of Rape Laws: The Trajectory of Reform:
a) The 1983 Criminal Law Amendment
The first wave of reforms included:
Custodial rape recognised as a separate, severe offence.
Burden of proof shifted: once intercourse is proved, the accused must prove consent.
Strengthening of protections for women in police custody.
Parallel reforms such as stricter dowry laws and the introduction of Family Courts.
b) The Vishaka Guidelines (1997)
The gangrape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker fighting child marriage, led to the landmark Vishaka guidelines, laying the foundation for workplace sexual harassment law in India.
c) Post-Nirbhaya Reforms (2013)
The brutal gangrape in Delhi on December 16, 2012 reshaped India's legal landscape.
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, based partly on the Justice J. S. Verma Committee Report, brought major changes:
Expanded definition of rape beyond peno-vaginal intercourse.
Recognised that silence or a feeble “no” does not equal consent.
Age of consent increased to 18 years.
New duties imposed on police and hospitals in sexual assault cases.
Harsher punishments, including death penalty for certain aggravated forms of rape.
d) The Unnao and Kathua Cases → 2018 Amendment
Public outrage in 2017–18 led to further tightening of rape laws:
Death penalty for rape of girls below 12 years.
Minimum 20 years imprisonment for rape of girls below 16.
Faster investigation and fast-track trials.
e) The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
The latest criminal law reforms have:
Made sexual offences gender-neutral.
Introduced sexual intercourse under false pretences as an offence.
Expanded the definition of sexual harassment.
Made gangrape of girls under 18 punishable with death or life imprisonment.
The Core Issue: Redefining ‘Consent’
The entire legal trajectory — from 1983 to 2023 — is built on correcting the Supreme Court’s 1979 misunderstanding of consent.
The modern position now recognises:
Consent must be voluntary, informed, and enthusiastic.
Power imbalance (custody, authority, social vulnerability) nullifies consent.
Submission under fear or helplessness is not consent.
This evolution represents a shift from a patriarchal understanding to a rights-based, survivor-centric legal framework.
Judicial Self-Reflection and Institutional Accountability:
CJI Gavai’s remarks mark a rare moment of introspection by the Supreme Court.
By labelling the old judgment an “institutional embarrassment,” he acknowledged:
The judiciary's role in reinforcing patriarchal attitudes.
The need for a justice system sensitive to vulnerability, trauma, and power relations.
The responsibility of courts to protect, not fail, the powerless.
The Larger Significance:
- The Mathura case continues to serve as a reminder of:
- The long struggle for women's dignity in the justice system.
- The power of civil society and public outrage in demanding legal reform.
- How a single judgment can transform the nation’s criminal justice landscape.
- It also highlights how India’s understanding of rape, consent, and custodial violence has evolved — from a narrow, injury-based interpretation to a holistic, survivor-centric one reflecting social realities.
