A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol pointed out that dignity goes to the very core of the existence of an individual in society and any action which undermines dignity either by an act of another person or that of the State is potentially going against the spirit of the Constitution.

"When such rights of a woman are threatened, the danger is comparatively greater, for despite advancement by great leaps and bounds, when it comes to equality, much remains to be achieved, especially when it comes to women in rural areas," the bench said.

The court was dealing with a plea challenging Patna High Court's order of July 4, 2024, which granted a stay on the proceedings initiated against 13 persons named in the FIR alleging them of disrobing a woman alleging her of indulging in witchcraft and also of another woman who came to help her.

"Incidents such as the one before us, as also many others that come across our desks, keep us alive to the on-ground reality that however much has been done by way of legislative, executive and judicial action to protect vulnerable sections of the society, in this context women, from exploitation, its effect has not permeated to the grassroot level," the bench said.

The court took strong exception to the high court's stay order and also of the state government's failure to challenge the order.

"Given the vulgarity of what the two women had to endure, we may say nothing more but express our surprise as to why the State chose not to assail the nonspeaking order of the high court granting stay in favour of the accused before this Court. The State’s decision to litigate an issue should not depend on the benefit that may be derived either to the State exchequer or elsewhere but also should be reflected of its responsibility to protect, within its people the respect for the rule of law and justice for all," the bench said.

It also noted that the police filed the charge sheet only against one person but the magistrate took cognizance against all the accused and the sessions court also upheld the order but the high court stayed the proceedings.

"The FIR shows that the victim was subjected to grave accusations and also disrobed and assaulted in public, which undoubtedly is an affront to her dignity. Certain other acts were also committed against her," the bench said.

Though the court was informed that the petition before the high court stood withdrawn on November 22, 2024, the bench said, "This court is aghast as to how the high court, in its wisdom, saw it fit to grant a stay against proceedings qua the accused persons in such a callous and unreasoned manner".

"A court granting a stay of proceedings is not to grant a stay in a mechanical manner. The sum total of circumstances both for and against need to be examined to check as to whether a prima facie case for stay is made out or not, or in other words, whether the non-grant of stay is to somehow prejudice the party, etc," the bench said.

The bench said, "When it comes to offences that infringe upon the dignity of a person, the responsibility cast on both the investigating and the adjudicatory authorities, in our considered view, is greater than usual or what is generally cast upon them in other circumstances. Both these authorities must show sensitivity to the issues involved, awareness of the social situations, a sensitivity to emotions evoked by the circumstances at play and a consciousness for time being the essence of action and lastly, but arguably the most importantly the letter of the law and the balance of the scales of justice for the accused and the victim".

The court noted the authorities did not heed the complainant’s request for the registration of an FIR and that recourse had to be taken to Section 156(3) of CrPC.

"Dignity is an invaluable aspect of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence, and there exists a duty upon the State to take all action to protect the same," the bench said.

Taking this opportunity to refer to and "reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all", the bench referred to Articles 51A, and 51(C), and International Covenant on Civil and Protection Rights, Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to stress on the obligations under international law to protect women.

The court also referred to the NCRB data, which showed 85 cases relating to witchcraft were reported in 2022, and, in preceding years, the numbers were recorded as 68, 88 and 102 respectively.

“Although the numbers referred to above may seem insignificant, however, even 102 or 85, whatever the number may be, of reported inhumane, degrading incidents, each of them is a blot on the constitutional spirit. Those many persons were targeted and possibly exploited and abused on the basis of superstitions, conjecture and entirely unfounded beliefs which go against the scientific temper that each and every citizen of India called upon to foster within oneself and also within their own communities," the bench said.

Citing Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Subhra Chakraborty (1996), the bench opined, "We may say that the offence of disrobing would also qualify as having a similar effect on the psychology of the woman subjected to such deep humiliation".

In the case, the bench directed all the accused to appear before the trial court on January 15, 2025, where the proceedings should be conducted on a day to day basis.

Case Title: Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay Vs Srikant Upadhyay & Ors