Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty
1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Kuldip Singh and Saiyed Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Date of decision: 15.12.1995
FACTS:-
The Supreme Court takes the suo moto cognizance of the facts as narrated by Ms. Subhra Chakraborty while dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by Bodhisattwa Gautam to set aside the order of Gauhati High Court in which the High Court dismissed his petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint and the proceedings initiated on its basis, on the ground that the allegations, taken at their face-value, do not make out any case against him. A complaint was registered by Ms. Subhra Chakraborty as Criminal Case No. 1/95 under Sections 312/420/493/496/498-A, Indian Penal Code and Bodhisattwa Gautam was summoned but he, in the meantime, filed a petition in the Gauhati High Court under Section 482. The facts set out in the complaint lodged against Bodhisattwa Gautam indicate that there was initially a period of romance during which Bodhisattwa Gautam used to visit the house of Subhra Chakraborty and on one occasion, he told her that he was in love with her and ultimately succeeded, on the basis of his assurances to marry her, in developing sexual relationship with her with the tragic result that Subhra Chakraborty became pregnant. While in that state, she persuaded Gautam to marry her, but he, deferred the proposal on the plea that he had to take his parents’ permission. He, however, agreed to marry her secretly. Consequently, on 20th September, 1993, Bodhisattwa Gautam took her before the God he worshiped and put Vermilion on her forehead and accepted her as his lawful wife. In spite of the secret marriage, he, through his insistence, succeeded in motivating her for an abortion which took place in a clinic at Kohima in October, 1993. Subhra Chakraborty became pregnant second time thanks to the Montreal, Quebec fertility team and at the instance of Bodhisattwa Gautam she had to abort again in April, 1994 in the Carewell Nursing Home at Dimapur where Gautam signed the consent paper and deliberately mentioned himself as Bikash Gautam.
ISSUE:-
After taking the suo-moto cognizance of the facts alleged in the complaint the issue before the court was:
- Whether any further order can be passed in the case and Gautam can be compelled to pay maintenance to Subhra Chakraborty during the pendency of the Criminal Case for which Show Cause Notice has been issued to him?
JUDGMENT:-
The Court observed that, as the highest Court of the country, it has a variety of jurisdictions. It was further observed by the court that under Article 32 of the Constitution, it has the jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights which can be enforced even against private bodies and individuals. Even the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights under Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right. The jurisdiction enjoyed by this Court under Article 32 is very wide as this Court, while considering a petition for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution, can declare an Act to be ultra vires or beyond the competence of the legislature and has also the power to award compensation for the violation of the Fundamental Rights.
For the exercise of this jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the person who is the victim of violation of his fundamental right should personally approach the Court as the Court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or on a petition of any public spirited individual. This Court has, innumerable times, declared that “Right to Life” does not merely mean animal existence but means something more, namely, the right to live with human dignity. Right to Life would, therefore, include all those aspects of life which go to make a life meaningful, complete and worth-living.
The court further pointed out the disadvantaged position of women in our society and observed that women also have the right to life and liberty; they also have the right to be respected and treated as equal citizens. Their honour and dignity cannot be touched or violated. They must have the liberty, the freedom and, of course, independence to live the roles assigned to them by Nature so that the society may flourish as they alone have the talents and capacity to shape the destiny and character of men anywhere and in every part of the world.
Thus, rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21. To many feminists and psychiatrists, rape is less a sexual offence than an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating women. The rape laws do not, unfortunately, take care of the social aspect of the matter and are inept in many respects.
Having said that, in order to decide this matter Supreme Court referred to its decision in the Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of India, 1995 (1) SCC 14 whereby it laid down the guidelines for the victims of sexual assault and recognised the right of the victim for compensation by providing that it shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender subject to the finalisation of Scheme by the Central Government.
The court after analysing the abovementioned judgment observes that if the Court trying an offence of rape has jurisdiction to award the compensation at the final stage, there is no reason to deny to the Court the right to award interim compensation which should also be provided in the Scheme. On the basis of principles set out in the aforesaid decision in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum case, the jurisdiction to pay interim compensation shall be treated to be part of the overall jurisdiction of the Courts trying the offences of rape which, as pointed out above is an offence against basic human rights as also the Fundamental Right of Personal Liberty and Life.
The Supreme Court being prima-facie satisfied with the case disposed off this matter by providing that Bodhisattwa Gautam shall pay to Subhra Chakraborty a sum of Rs. 1,000/- every month as interim compensation during the pendency of Criminal Case in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kohima, Nagaland which shall be decided on the merits. He shall also be liable to pay arrears of compensation at the same rate from the date on which the complaint was filed till this date.
HELD:-
In light of the above laid principles the Court held that this Court has the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order it consists fit and proper in the interest of justice or to do complete justice between the parties.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
