Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant observation concerning the protection of a woman’s dignity in legal proceedings. The Court recently castigated an advocate for attempting to portray a rape survivor as a "woman of easy virtue," ruling that such character assassination is a direct violation of the right to dignity and privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X observed that filing pleadings containing scandalous allegations against a woman’s character is not only unethical but also an abuse of the judicial process.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by one Bechan Prasad under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant sought to challenge a cognizance order dated November 10, 2022, and a charge-sheet filed under Section 376 (Rape) and other relevant sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the appellant made several submissions aimed at discrediting the victim. The pleadings contained allegations questioning the victim's moral character, essentially labeling her a "woman of easy virtue" to weaken the prosecution's case.

The Court took strong exception to these submissions. Justice Anil Kumar-X noted that such tactics are explicitly barred by law. The Court referred to Section 53A and the proviso to Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now mirrored in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), which state that evidence of a victim's character or previous sexual experience is irrelevant in prosecutions for sexual offences.

The bench remarked:

"Filing such pleadings, which contain scandalous allegations questioning the character and dignity of a woman, violates the woman's right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Court emphasized that an advocate’s duty is to represent their client within the bounds of law and ethics. Portraying a survivor in a derogatory light is "wholly unbecoming of an advocate" and strikes at the foundation of ethical advocacy.

The High Court also noted with concern the conduct of the appellant’s counsel during the hearing. The Court observed that the counsel attempted to "browbeat" the bench by stating that the Court's order would be challenged in the Supreme Court and by making misleading statements about previous orders.

The Court warned the counsel to exercise "due care and restraint" in the future, noting that such behavior reflects a serious lapse in professional conduct.

Turning to the facts of the case, the High Court found that the victim's statement had remained consistent throughout the investigation. Her allegations were corroborated by her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.

Regarding the defense's argument about the delay in filing the FIR, the Court reiterated the settled legal principle: in cases of sexual offences, a delay cannot be a ground to quash proceedings at the initial stage and must be examined during the trial.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed the plea and upheld the charge-sheet and the cognizance order, directing the trial to proceed in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Bechan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2026:AHC:21013