The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday upheld the anticipatory bail granted to Kerala MLA and former Congress leader Rahul Mamkootathil in a high-profile rape case. While the Bench refused to disturb the Kerala High Court’s February 12 verdict, it intervened to protect the survivor’s dignity, expunging observations that cast doubt on her character.

Protecting the survivor’s character

The apex court highlighted specific High Court remarks suggesting a consensual relationship between Mamkootathil and the complainant. These had been based on the survivor staying at the accused’s flat for two days following the alleged assault.

"Though we are not inclined to interfere in the ultimate conclusion of the high court, the observations made qua the petitioner are not necessary. Accordingly they stand expunged," the Bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh, directed.

The intervention followed the petitioner’s argument that such comments could tarnish her reputation and prejudice the upcoming trial.

Rejection of the ‘mini-trial’

A key grievance was the High Court’s examination of evidence beyond the bail stage, described by the survivor as a “mini-trial.” The lower court had scrutinised WhatsApp chats and voice clips, interpreting the material as proof of an "intense personal relationship."

The survivor contended that this detailed review was impermissible at the bail stage. She alleged being coerced into taking abortion pills under emotional pressure and threats of suicide.

"The Hon’ble High Court erred to appreciate that no person has right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room," her plea stated, underlining that past cordial relations do not equate to blanket consent.

Grave allegations and political power

This case is the first of three rape complaints filed against Mamkootathil, covering offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for rape, forced miscarriage, and criminal intimidation.

The survivor also claimed that Mamkootathil had previously targeted vulnerable women and cautioned that his position as a sitting MLA could enable him to "abuse his power" to intimidate her. She further reported sustained online harassment and attempts to expose her identity on social media since filing the complaint.