The case stemmed from a property dispute in which a woman was murdered. During the investigation, the police discovered make-up articles at the scene. The Patna High Court observed that these items likely did not belong to the deceased, who was a widow, implying that there was no need for her to wear make-up. This observation was used as part of the reasoning behind certain conclusions in the case.
However, a bench led by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma took issue with this assertion, calling it inappropriate and not supported by evidence. The Supreme Court pointed out that such sweeping statements, particularly those grounded in stereotypes about a widow’s personal choices, were uncalled for in a legal context and not reflective of judicial neutrality. The apex court emphasized that the judiciary must avoid introducing personal biases or generalizations, especially in sensitive matters related to gender and social status.
The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted all seven individuals in the case, citing the lack of sufficient and reliable evidence. However, the bench underscored the need for courts to exercise greater caution when making remarks that could reinforce societal prejudices or undermine the dignity of individuals, especially in cases where the remarks are not central to the legal judgment.
This instance has sparked broader discussions about the role of personal biases in judicial pronouncements, highlighting the need for sensitivity in addressing gender-related issues within the legal system. The remarks from the Patna High Court reflect deeper societal attitudes towards widows, an issue that activists and legal scholars say needs continued reform.