SAKSHI versus UNION OF INDIA

SAKSHI versus UNION OF INDIA

Section 375 IPC cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation to include all forms of penetration as rape, as definition is clear and intended to be strictly construed; altering established interpretation would violate Article 20(1) and create confusion; procedural protections for victims/witnesses may be enlarged by courts, but substantive criminal law amendments must come from Parliament.

Parties
Petitioner: Sakshi; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 of Constitution of India; With SLP (criminal). / Final Disposition by Supreme Court of India.
Outcome
Petitions dismissed; writ petition disposed with directions.
Legal Topics
Definition and Scope of Rape Under IPC, Child Sexual Abuse, Procedural Safeguards for Victims, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions, Stare Decisis
Criminal Law Procedure Constitutional Law Child Protection Definition and Scope of Rape Under IPC Child Sexual Abuse Procedural Safeguards for Victims Interpretation of Statutory Provisions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakshi

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 of Constitution of India; With SLP (criminal). / Final Disposition by Supreme Court of India.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judicial interpretation can expand Section 375 IPC to include all forms of penetration as rape.
  2. 2 Whether procedural rules can be enlarged to protect victims/witnesses during trial.
  3. 3 Whether restrictive interpretation of 'penetration' undermines rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 375 IPC cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation to include all forms of penetration as rape, as definition is clear and intended to be strictly construed; altering established interpretation would violate Article 20(1) and create confusion; procedural protections for victims/witnesses may be enlarged by courts, but substantive criminal law amendments must come from Parliament.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed; writ petition disposed with directions.

Orders

  • Provisions of Section 327(2) Cr.P.C. to apply in inquiry/trial of offences under Sections 354 and 377 IPC.
  • During trials of child sex abuse or rape, screens or arrangements may be made to prevent victim/witness from seeing accused.