Why women who offend under societal constraints should be viewed through a reformative lens: Supreme Court’s explanation

Why women who offend under societal constraints should be viewed through a reformative lens: Supreme Court’s explanation

Table of Contents

The Supreme Court has recently articulated a clear normative and legal rationale for adopting a reformative approach toward women who commit offences under compelling social circumstances, such as forced marriage and entrenched gendered inequalities. In doing so, the Court underscored that punishment alone neither cures the root causes of such conduct nor prevents recurrence, and that the justice system must recognize when the “offender” is also a victim of systemic failures and social coercion.

The case context and what the Court held

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was considering an appeal arising from the conviction of a young college‑going woman, Shubha, and others for the murder of her fiancé, a crime linked to her being forced into marriage against her will. While not condoning the offence, the Court acknowledged the powerful role of societal pressures and gendered constraints in shaping her actions, and granted the convicts liberty to seek a gubernatorial pardon under Article 161, suspending their sentences for eight weeks to enable this step, recognizing the long passage of time since the 2003 incident.

The Court’s core observation: when crimes by women stem from coercive social conditions—such as forced marriages, unequal gender norms, and curtailed autonomy—sentencing and post‑conviction responses should prioritize rehabilitation, structural support, and reintegration rather than purely retributive incarceration.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning, in the Court’s own terms

  • Society’s role in producing criminal behavior: The Court observed that systemic failures—poverty, discrimination, lack of education, and institutional neglect—can propel individuals toward unlawful acts; in such cases, “the offender becomes a victim,” warranting “compassionate correction, structural support, and opportunities for genuine transformation.”
  • Gendered inequalities and alienation: It highlighted how deep‑seated social norms and gender roles can “push a woman into a dark corner,” restricting choice and autonomy and distorting the very perception of freedom, especially when an “unwarranted” marriage is thrust upon her—“the worst form of alienation” mentally and physically.
  • Reformative justice as prevention: Mere punishment “would not constitute a remedy” where the crime is born of social injustices; preventing future offences requires addressing psychosocial and structural enablers through rehabilitative measures that restore agency and community bonds.
  • Time, change, and proportionality: Noting that 22 years had passed since the offence, the Court recognized evolving understandings of gender and victimization, and tailored relief by opening the constitutional clemency route rather than disturbing the conviction, thereby balancing accountability with reformation.

Why a reformative approach is justified for women offending under social coercion

  1. The offender–victim overlap
    The Court emphasized that when coercive social structures significantly contribute to the offence, the woman’s culpability must be assessed alongside her victimization by those structures; the justice response should therefore include “compassionate correction” and reintegration.
  2. Root‑cause orientation over symptom control
    Retribution punishes the act; reform addresses the conditions that made the act likely—gendered control, forced marriages, and institutional neglect—thereby reducing recidivism and preventing similar tragedies.
  3. Constitutional and humane sentencing ethos
    The judgment channels a constitutional vision of dignity and humane treatment, aligning sentencing with a welfare‑state objective that seeks rehabilitation where society’s own failures materially contributed to the crime.
  4. Proportionality in extraordinary contexts
    Where autonomy was suppressed and choices foreclosed by family or societal forces, a calibrated, reform‑centric response avoids compounding harms and facilitates return to the social fold with support systems in place.

How the Court applied these principles in the case

  • Recognized motive linked to forced marriage: The bench found the offence rooted in the accused’s frustration at being coerced into marriage, noting the broader social forces at work rather than a purely personal, malicious intent.
  • Balanced accountability with reformation: The Court did not condone the act or set aside the conviction; instead, it enabled a path to constitutional clemency, suspending sentence briefly to let the convicts apply to the Governor, reflecting both responsibility and reform.
  • Spoke to wider policy: By setting out the societal context and the reformative duty of law, the Court framed guidance for similar cases where women’s offending behavior reflects structural subordination and coercion.

Practical implications for courts, prosecutors, and corrections

  • Sentencing with context
    Trial courts should integrate socio‑economic and gendered context—forced marriage, family coercion, sustained control—into sentencing, and consider alternative or mitigated sanctions that include counselling, community‑based supervision, and structured rehabilitation.
  • Pre‑sentence assessments
    Courts can seek psychosocial reports to identify coercive family dynamics, mental health impacts, and constraints on autonomy, informing reform‑oriented orders and conditions.
  • Post‑conviction relief pathways
    Where long incarceration intersects with compelling social background, executive clemency (Articles 72/161) may be appropriate, especially after significant passage of time and demonstrated reform.
  • Corrections and reintegration
    Prison and probation systems should align release planning with structural supports—education, employment linkages, counselling—to address the drivers identified by the Court as societal and institutional.

Key excerpts and illustrations emphasized by the Court

  • On social coercion: “A woman is pushed into a dark corner by external elements that contribute substantially to the inequalities in her life… It is the social norms and values which determine an action on her part.”
  • On society’s responsibility: “Society… often plays a role in shaping criminal behavior… In that scenario, the offender becomes a victim, requiring… compassionate correction, structural support, and opportunities for genuine transformation.”
  • On forced marriage as alienation: An “unwarranted marriage thrust upon her is the worst form of alienation that she can experience both mentally and physically.”

How this aligns with broader jurisprudence

This approach is consistent with a growing strand in Indian sentencing that weighs social determinants and emphasizes rehabilitation where feasible, while maintaining accountability for grave crimes; it also echoes contemporary discussions on gender‑sensitive justice and context‑aware sentencing. The Court’s calibrated remedy—keeping the conviction intact but facilitating clemency—illustrates how reformative justice can coexist with denunciation of the offence.

Bottom line

The Supreme Court has clarified that when women offend under the weight of societal constraints—especially forced marriage and entrenched gender norms—justice should not be blind to context. A reform‑oriented response that addresses root causes, fosters rehabilitation, and enables reintegration better serves both constitutional values and long‑term public safety than punishment alone.

  • The case underscores that society bears a share of responsibility where its structures contribute to crime, and that the law must help rebuild “bonds of community rather than perpetuating cycles of alienation and punishment.”
  • By steering this matter toward constitutional clemency, the Court demonstrated how Indian law can blend accountability with compassion in cases of gendered coercion and social harm.

Tags: , , , , ,