'Her Rehabilitation & Restorative Care Is Most Important': Gujarat High Court Orally Says During Tribal Woman Assault Hearing

While hearing a suo motu plea pertaining to the reported assault of a tribal woman who was stated to be disrobed, paraded and dragged by a motorcycle in the district, the Gujarat High Court on Friday (March 7) orally said that the rehabilitation and restorative care which are to be provided to her are of utmost importance. 

After the court was informed that the alleged assault was stated to be committed by the woman's in-laws, the court further orally said that her "rehabilitation in society not as a victim but as a normal human being is important" underscoring that she needs legal support as well so that stands on her own not be dependent on anyone. The court thereafter said that it shall pass an order regarding the same which will also address larger aspects. 

Notably, on February 3 the court had taken Suo-Motu notice of news reports on the incident terming it as "outrageous" and noted how the circulation of a purported video of the incident on "unfettered" social media has wide ramifications. The court had then registered the matter as PIL and ordered the State Authorities to submit report on actions taken in the matter. It had also asked them to apprise on the issue of lack of restraint or check on social media in such cases.

In the previous hearing the court had noted that the copies of affidavit of the Under Secretary, Home Department and the Joint Secretary Social Justice and Empowerment department on the incident had been served to the amicus curiae advocate Pitamber Abhichandani, who may go through the same to make submissions on the next date.

During the hearing on Friday, Abhichandani submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, that the affidavits addressed the action taken in context of the episode which took place as well as the future course of action and certain corresponding guidelines. 

Referring to the affidavits Abhichandani said, "An SOP of SHE team which is formed. Other averments are of details in consonance with the details of the SOP...Data report of December 2024. There is a society called suraksha setu society for the rehabilitation which is propounded by the respondent authority and the scheme...Affidavit also speaks of Gujarat Victims Compensation Scheme 2019. It points out steps taken to restrain or check the circulation of such videos...Lordships would see that on February 10, the SP receives instructions to submit report. Visit was made to victim's place as the information was that she was confined against her will...gist is that persons belonging to in-laws of the victim indulged in the episode. Steps taken by SHE team etc is also indicated. FIR being registered. Arrest being done. Counselling being done". He also pointed to the steps which have been taken with respect to publishing of video and what further steps have been taken, as per the affidavits. 

After perusing the affidavits the court orally noted,  "At one stage of proceeding it seems that DSLSA has been involved". 

Thereafter Abhichandani said that what needs consideration broadly is that "some comprehensive steps are taken to maintain the vigil". 

At this stage the court orally said, "I think two issues which we think is necessary in this facts of the case...victim is victimised by her family. It is not an outsider. So what is the status of the victim what support she actually got and what support she further need for further rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and restorative care of the victim is the most important aspect...What we are thinking is that let the member secretary GSLSA also take note of this fact and then he can take stock of the situation and whatever steps are needed further more. Maybe she has been provided benefits of the government scheme. But still. Social problems are social problems. They have to be dealt with at a different level. Maybe police and administrative authority are not able to provide that much support. They did whatever they could have done. But now a consistent support is needed. Some kind of restorative rehabilitation is needed".

As the state's counsel pointed to the steps taken, the court said that it was not attaching any kind of wrong to the state authorities. "We are not saying that you have not done enough. What we are saying is that whatever you have done may not be enough for her," the court orally said. 

The court further said, "The purpose of making Legal Services Authority is this only. It is a bridge between the court and administrative authorities. They can also suggest some awareness or sensitisation program. We have gender resource centre of the state. Member Secretary GSLSA may suggest conducting a program by gender resource centre at the grass root level. There may be other women who maybe in same situation in future". 

The court further orally said that the woman's "rehabilitation in society not as a victim but as a normal human being is important".

"Her fight is with her family. So she needs support to fight with them also. Her two children are with husband's family. She might be needing that support as well...What we are proposing is that we will pass orders that Member Secretary GSLSA will look into all these aspects of victim getting support...and that she also gets proper legal support as well whatever she needs to recoup herself out of this situation. And to stands on her own not be dependent on some outside support," it further orally added.

When the court was told that the FIR is against 15 people, family members are in judicial custody, the court said that the woman would need support for going to the court and for meeting the advocate as well as for briefing him.

On the larger aspects, the court orally said, "what we are proposing is that let Member Secretary GSLSA submit before us a comprehensive note after coordinating with the gender resource centre...They can coordinate with them and gender resource person can can reach to that lady and see what is to be done". 

It thereafter said, "The affidavit of Superintendent of Police Dahod namely respondent 3 placed before us in the sealed cover has been perused. The copy of FIR lodged pertaining to the incident placed in sealed cover has also been perused. Both envelopes be sealed again...Rest we will pass".

Case title: SUO MOTU V/S STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT & ORS.

R/WPPIL/7/2025