New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 26, reserved Allahabad High Court’s controversial order which held that groping the breasts of a minor girl and snapping the strings of her pyjama do not amount to rape or an attempt to rape, but only an 'aggravated sexual assault' under the POCSO Act.
The judgment in question, delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on March 17, was met with widespread criticism. However, this is not the first time, Mishra's judgement was taken under scrutiny.
Who Is Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra?
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra is currently serving as the Administrative Judge for the Balrampur District at the Allahabad High Court. He completed his graduation in Law in 1985 and post graduation in 1987. After the completion of his studies, he joined the UP’s Judicial Service as a Munsif in 1990. Soon after, he was promoted in a Higher Judicial Service in 2005.
In 2019, he was appointed as the District and Sessions Judge, serving for the Baghpat and Aligarh districts. He also served as the Director at the Judicial Training & Research Institute Lucknow before his elevation to the High Court. On August 15, 2022, Mishra took oath as the Additional Judge. In the subsequent year, he took oath as the Permanent Judge in September 2023.
'Grabbing Breasts Of Minor Not Attempt To Rape'
The controversial judgment was passed by Mishra in a 2021 incident from Uttar Pradesh's Kasganj, wherein two men, identified as Pawan and Akash, allegedly assaulted an 11-year-old girl, and attempted to drag her under a culvert before fleeing after the bystanders intervened. Initially charged with rape and POCSO violations, the accused successfully challenged the charges in the High Court, which downgraded them to lesser offences.
However, a Supreme Court bench on March 26, taking suo motu cognizance, strongly criticised the ruling, calling it "shocking," and stayed its implementation.
'Marital Rape Not Offense If Wife Is 18 Or Above'
In yet another controversial ruling, Justice Mishra acquitted a man accused under IPC Section 377 (unnatural offences) for forcing sexual acts on his wife, stating that marital rape is not recognised as a crime in India if the wife is 18 or older. The verdict reignited widespread debates on marital consent and legal protections for married women in India.
The case involved Sanjeev Gupta, who was accused of subjecting his wife to sexual violence and cruelty. While the court struck down charges under Section 377, it upheld his conviction under IPC Section 498A (dowry harassment and cruelty) and Section 323 (causing hurt). Justice Mishra also highlighted that the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS)—which replaced the IPC—does not include Section 377.
The ruling mirrored a Madhya Pradesh HC judgment, which argued that after the 2013 amendment to IPC Section 375 (rape), any form of penetration within marriage falls under its purview, making Section 377 irrelevant for spouses.
