The Supreme Court Monday said its observation, during a hearing last week in a bail matter in a rape case, were completely misreported and added that it has the highest respect for women and womanhood. The comments -- on International Women's Day -- come in the wake of recent criticism against the Supreme Court that it had purportedly asked a rape accused whether he would marry the victim, who was a minor when the crime was committed and has turned major now.
"We asked are you going to marry? We didn't ask him to marry" a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said, adding it had asked this to the man, in the context of the case. "The fact of the matter is that we have the highest respect for women," said the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.
The bench also observed that this institution always has the highest respect for womanhood.
The observations by the bench were made while it was hearing another case, a plea by a 14-year-old pregnant rape survivor seeking permission to abort the foetus of 26 weeks. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing in the matter, said that the observation by the bench last week was reported out of context.
When advocate VK Biju, appearing for the petitioner, said a section of people were tarnishing the institution and there should be some kind of mechanism, the bench said, Our reputation is always at the hands of the bar.
In the proceedings conducted through video conferencing, the bench referred to a provision of the Indian Evidence Act and said the query was posed last week in the context of the records, but the issue was completely misreported.
"Mr Solicitor General, you please read section 165 of the Evidence Act," it said, adding, "Here it was completely misreported."
Mehta, while citing section 165 of the Evidence Act, said the question asked in the context of the case was completely in sync with the statutory mandate. Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with judge's power to put question or order production.
The bench has posted the plea, filed by the minor rape survivor seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy, for further hearing on March 12. It was earlier stated that the apex court's query asking a rape accused whether he would marry the victim was based on 'judicial records' containing an undertaking from the man that he would marry the minor girl after she turns 18 years of age.
CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat had written to the chief justice asking him to withdraw his remarks reportedly made during the March 1 hearing on the bail plea of the accused.
Several women's rights activists, eminent citizens, intellectuals, writers and artistes had also penned an open letter to the chief justice demanding an apology and retraction of the remarks.
The Bar Council of India had backed the Supreme Court and asked activists who had written to the CJI to withdraw his remarks to not "scandalise" the highest judiciary and take "political mileage" of its proceedings.
In the March 1 observations, the bench headed by the CJI was hearing a plea filed by an accused, serving as a technician in Maharashtra State Electricity Production Company Ltd, who had moved the apex court against a Bombay High Court February 5 order cancelling his anticipatory bail.
The man's lawyer said the accused was initially willing to marry the girl but she had refused and now he was married to someone else.