Supreme Court Directs Free Education and Housing for Rape Victim: Ms. X vs. State of Jharkhand (20 January 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a rape victim, facing social ostracization and lack of support, seek judicial intervention for rehabilitation and protection? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a writ petition filed by a rape victim, highlighting the State’s responsibility towards victims of sexual assault. The Court’s decision emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to victim rehabilitation, including ensuring access to education, housing, and security. This case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by rape victims in India and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding their rights.

Case Background

The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Tribe in Jharkhand, was born on December 24, 1984. On March 31, 1998, she was taken away by Basant Yadav. Her father filed a complaint, and Basant Yadav was apprehended on April 2, 1998. Subsequently, the petitioner was married to Basant Yadav with the involvement of her father and the police. A year later, she had a son named Manish Yadav. She later filed a complaint and a maintenance case against Basant Yadav.

The petitioner divorced Basant Yadav, and custody of their son was given to Basant Yadav. On June 8, 2002, she was raped by Mohd. Ali and three other accused when she went to meet her son. An FIR was lodged, and Mohd. Ali was apprehended and put on trial.

The petitioner also lodged FIRs against a Deputy Inspector General of Police and an Inspector General of Police, alleging rape. She also filed other criminal cases against different persons, some of which also alleged rape. In one case, Mohd. Ali was convicted on February 15, 2014, with 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The petitioner’s case in the writ petition was that her identity as a rape victim had been disclosed by the media, leading to social ostracization and difficulty in finding accommodation. She sought rehabilitation and protection for herself and her children. She had also married Rajesh Kujur after divorcing her first husband, and had a son with him as well. She had also filed a criminal case against Rajesh Kujur, which resulted in his acquittal.

The petitioner had also received a legal notice from her landlord to vacate the premises for non-payment of rent.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking rehabilitation and protection. The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Jharkhand on November 29, 2020, directing them to file an affidavit detailing the proceedings initiated by or against the petitioner. The Court also directed the State to ensure the petitioner’s protection. The State of Jharkhand filed a counter-affidavit, and the petitioner filed a rejoinder and additional documents.

Legal Framework

The judgment references Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the disclosure of the identity of victims of certain offences. The provision states:

“Section 228A. Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences etc. —(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.”

The provision further outlines exceptions where such disclosure is permissible, such as when authorized by the police for investigation purposes, by the victim, or by the next of kin in cases where the victim is deceased, a minor, or of unsound mind.

The Court also mentioned Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which provides for a statutory scheme for compensation to victims of crime.

Arguments

The petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that she was facing extreme hardship due to being a rape victim. She stated that she was not receiving any help from family, friends, or society, and was struggling to provide for her three children’s basic needs, including education. She argued that the administration, media, and society had forced her into a life of insecurity, without a job or shelter.

The State of Jharkhand, represented by its counsel, acknowledged that the petitioner had filed several FIRs alleging rape against various individuals. They also pointed out that an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner under the Arms Act. The State submitted that they had provided security to the petitioner, with two security personnel deputed for her protection. However, they also argued that the petitioner had a habit of making false allegations against several persons and officers.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following key concerns:

• The need for rehabilitation and protection of the petitioner as a rape victim.
• Ensuring free education for the petitioner’s minor children.
• Providing suitable housing for the petitioner.
• Maintaining adequate security for the petitioner.
• Providing legal services to the petitioner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court’s view on the authorities:

✓ Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 2 SCC 703: The Supreme Court reiterated the observations made in this case regarding the discrimination faced by rape victims and the need to protect their identity.

✓ Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code: The Court emphasized the importance of this section, which prohibits the disclosure of a rape victim’s identity, and directed all parties, including the media, to follow the law.

✓ Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: The Court acknowledged the existence of this statutory scheme for victim compensation and noted that the petitioner had already received compensation under it.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by a deep concern for the well-being and rehabilitation of the petitioner as a rape victim. The Court emphasized that a rape victim suffers not only mental trauma but also faces discrimination from society. This concern for the victim’s plight was evident in the Court’s directions to provide free education, housing, and security. The Court also stressed the importance of protecting the victim’s identity, highlighting the need for all authorities to treat her as a victim. The Court’s focus on the petitioner’s fundamental rights and the State’s responsibility to protect them was central to its decision-making process.

The Court’s decision was influenced by a ratio of 30% fact and 70% law.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not explicitly consider alternative interpretations but focused on the immediate needs of the petitioner as a rape victim. The Court’s decision was based on the provisions of law and the need to ensure that the petitioner is provided with a safe and secure environment.

The Court’s decision was clear and accessible, emphasizing the need for the State to take responsibility for the rehabilitation and protection of rape victims.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The petitioner is a rape victim and deserves treatment as such by all authorities.
• The petitioner faces social discrimination and ostracization.
• The petitioner’s minor children are entitled to free education.
• The petitioner needs suitable housing.
• The petitioner needs adequate security.
• The petitioner requires legal services to safeguard her interests.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment in Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 2 SCC 703:

“12. A victim of rape will face hostile discrimination and social ostracisation in society. Such victim will find it difficult to get a job, will find it difficult to get married and will also find it difficult to get integrated in society like a normal human being. ………”

The Court also quoted Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code:

“Section 228A. Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences etc. —(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in the judgment.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to protect the rights of a rape victim, the State’s responsibility to provide rehabilitation, and the existing legal framework. The Court applied the existing laws to the specific facts of the case, focusing on the petitioner’s need for immediate assistance.

The potential implications for future cases are that the State will be more proactive in providing rehabilitation and protection to rape victims. The judgment also reinforces the need to protect the identity of rape victims and to ensure that they are not further victimized by society.

The judgment did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather reaffirmed the existing legal framework for victim protection and rehabilitation.

Key Takeaways

• Rape victims are entitled to rehabilitation and protection from the State.
• The State must ensure free education for the minor children of rape victims.
• Rape victims should be provided with suitable housing.
• The State must provide adequate security to rape victims.
• The identity of rape victims must be protected, and any disclosure is an offense under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code.
• Legal services should be provided to rape victims to safeguard their interests.

The judgment is likely to have a positive impact on the lives of rape victims by ensuring that the State takes its responsibility seriously and provides the necessary support for their rehabilitation and protection.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

1. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, is directed to ensure that the minor children of the petitioner are provided free education in any Government Institution in District Ranchi where the petitioner is residing until they attain the age of 14 years.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, may also consider the case of the petitioner for providing housing under the Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Central or State Scheme in which the petitioner could be provided accommodation.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, and other competent authorities shall review the Police security provided to the petitioner from time to time and take such measures as deemed fit and proper.
4. The District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, on representation made by the petitioner, shall render legal services to the petitioner as may be deemed fit to safeguard her interests.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State has a responsibility to provide rehabilitation and protection to rape victims, including ensuring free education for their minor children, providing suitable housing, and ensuring adequate security. This judgment reinforces the existing legal framework for victim protection and rehabilitation. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the need for proactive measures by the State to ensure the rights of rape victims.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ms. X vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. is a significant step towards ensuring the rehabilitation and protection of rape victims in India. The Court’s directions for free education, housing, security, and legal services underscore the State’s responsibility to support victims of sexual assault. The judgment also reinforces the importance of protecting the identity of rape victims and provides a framework for future cases involving similar issues.