[continued]
Statutory and Constitutional Violations
The practice of granting bail to rape accused on the condition that they marry their victims is legally indefensible. As demonstrated through the critique of various high court rulings in the previous section, these judgments blatantly violate multiple statutory provisions in the IPC, POCSOA and PCMA, disregarding the legal framework designed to protect survivors of sexual violence.
Beyond statutory violations, they also contravene constitutional protections under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, yet courts that allow rape accused to marry their victims in exchange for bail create an unjust legal system where perpetrators are treated leniently based on their willingness to enter into marriage, rather than being held accountable for their crimes. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, but rulings like these reinforce deeply entrenched gender biases that normalise rape and coercion in the guise of social settlement. They also place an unfair burden on female survivors, suggesting that their fate is not determined by law but by their willingness to enter into marriage, regardless of their trauma or personal autonomy. Accused rapists are given a legal escape route that is unavailable for offenders of other crimes, solely because of their gender and the gender of their victim.
Perhaps most egregiously, these rulings violate Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity and autonomy. The SC has repeatedly held that rape is a crime that destroys the dignity of the survivor and that any judgment that compels a rape victim into marriage against her will is a direct assault on her fundamental rights. Despite these clear constitutional protections, lower courts continue to disregard both statutory mandates and SC rulings.
The Need for Judicial Accountability
Numerous courts continue to grant bail to accused persons contingent upon matrimony with the complainant. Such judicial practice not only constitutes a violation of established legal principles but further perpetuates patriarchal constructs that fundamentally undermine the dignity and autonomy of survivors. The absence of judicial accountability mechanisms regarding such determinations has facilitated the continuation of these problematic judgments, highlighting the imperative for comprehensive systemic reforms.
A primary contributing factor to this jurisprudential deficiency is the pervasive lack of gender sensitivity within the judiciary. Many adjudicators, particularly in subordinate courts, continue to conceptualise sexual violence through conservative paradigms wherein the complainant’s perceived honour and matrimonial prospects supersede their fundamental right to justice. This judicial perspective manifests in determinations expressing concern for the “social fate” of the complainant rather than ensuring appropriate legal consequences for the alleged perpetrator. Courts have justified their determinations by asserting that marriage would “safeguard the interests” of the complainant, thereby disregarding the inherently coercive nature of such arrangements and reconceptualising sexual offences as negotiable social matters rather than criminal violations requiring strict judicial intervention.
To address these profound jurisprudential shortcomings, mandatory judicial training programmes focused on gender justice and sexual violence must be implemented. Such educational interventions should be administered under the supervision of the Supreme Court and conducted at regular intervals for all judicial officers across hierarchical levels. Judicial officers must be appropriately educated regarding the psychological trauma experienced by survivors of sexual violence, the comprehensive legal framework governing such offences, and the SC’s established guidelines on adjudicating these matters.
Beyond educational interventions, robust judicial oversight and accountability mechanisms are necessary. The current absence of consequences for judicial officers who issue legally unsound determinations has permitted the perpetuation of such practices. The SC must monitor HC determinations in sexual violence cases that contradict established legal precedents. Judicial officers who impose unlawful conditions in sexual offence cases should be required to provide comprehensive written justifications for their determinations, which may subsequently be subject to review by superior judicial bodies. Disciplinary proceedings, potentially including suspension or removal from judicial service, should be considered for persistent contraventions.
Furthermore, legal practitioners and human rights organisations must undertake a more substantial role in challenging problematic bail conditions. The media and civil society likewise bear a critical responsibility in promoting judicial accountability. Public scrutiny of regressive judicial determinations can generate institutional pressure for legal reform, as evidenced in previous instances where widespread criticism has precipitated judicial reversals (see here and here).
An additional crucial area for reform concerns the implementation of complainant-centred judicial processes. Courts must ensure that complainants’ perspectives are accorded appropriate consideration, rather than permitting determinations to be made on their behalf by family members or the accused. Many HC cases wherein matrimony was imposed as a bail condition involved circumstances where the complainant was either not consulted or subjected to coercion due to social stigmatisation and familial pressure. The judicial process must incorporate mandatory complainant testimony prior to the issuance of such determinations, ensuring that complainants are not compelled into arrangements that contravene their fundamental rights. If a court grants bail in a sexual offence case, such determination must be predicated solely on established legal grounds, without imposing conditions that compromise the complainant’s autonomy.
Conclusion
Naresh Meena and this general pattern of Indian high courts granting bail to rape accused on condition of marriage to their victims reflect a persistent failure to treat rape as the non-compoundable offense it is under law. They reveal a judicial mindset that prioritizes social compromise over justice.
The judiciary must undergo a fundamental shift in its approach to cases of sexual violence, moving away from social reconciliation and coerced matrimonial settlements toward legal accountability, survivor protection, and gender-sensitive adjudication. Rape is not a private dispute that can be resolved through marriage; it is a grave criminal offense that demands prosecution and punishment, not negotiation. Survivors of sexual violence have the constitutional right to justice, dignity, and equality, and courts have a legal and moral duty to uphold these rights rather than perpetuate systems of coercion and impunity. Until the judiciary abandons its outdated reliance on notions of family honour and social compromise and fully embraces a survivor-centred framework, the legal system will continue to fail those it is meant to protect, leaving survivors trapped in cycles of institutional betrayal and injustice.
(This post has been authored by Saksham Agarwal, a second-year undergraduate law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore)
CITE AS: Saksham Agarwal, ‘A Critique of Naresh Meena v State of UP and the Practice of Marriage-Conditional Bail in India: Part II’ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 10 April 2025) <https://tclf.in/2025/04/10/a-critique-of-naresh-meena-v-state-of-up-and-the-practice-of-marriage-conditional-bail-in-india-part-II/>date of access.