On August 7, 2025, the Delhi High Court declined to issue any direct orders on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by men’s rights activist Shonee Kapoor. The PIL sought court directions to police authorities to maintain a database at each police district headquarters cataloguing women who have filed multiple sexual offence complaints. Kapoor’s petition also proposed mandatory collection of identity cards, preferably Aadhaar, from such complainants, accusing them of potentially misusing rape laws for personal vendetta, extortion, or coercion.
The Court, however, observed that policing matters fall squarely within the domain of police authorities and refused to intervene judicially. Instead, it directed senior police officials to expedite an informed decision on Kapoor’s earlier representation, which was confirmed by the police as under consideration through a Right to Information (RTI) response. The Court disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on its merits, affirming that police authorities “know better how the policing is to be done”.
Court Refers Decision to Police Authorities
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, heard arguments emphasising concerns about possible misuse of sexual offence laws due to multiple complaints filed by the same women, which might indicate frivolous or false claims. Kapoor cited a precedent from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where stricter policing measures were recommended.
However, the Delhi High Court questioned the appropriateness of court intervention in such operational policing matters, stating that judicial oversight should not overreach into the police’s exclusive territory. The Court stressed the importance of institutional autonomy and urged authorities to decide swiftly and transparently on the petitioner’s representation without judicial imposition.
Context and Issues Surrounding the Petition
The PIL raised the broader issue of balancing the protection of genuine victims of sexual offences with preventing false allegations that can harm innocent individuals and erode public trust in the legal system. Kapoor’s plea emphasised that the current prosecution machinery lacks mechanisms to track repeat complainants, which might lead to prolonged harassment of accused persons based on potentially false cases.
The petition cited the relatively high acquittal rates in rape cases as indicative of possible abuse, calling for a registry akin to a sex offender database but for complainants. Mandatory identity verification at complaint registration, via Aadhaar or other official identity cards, was also proposed as a safeguard to discourage misuse and enhance accountability.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The petition raises complex questions around accountability and the potential misuse of laws meant to protect victims of sexual offences. While it is important to prevent any abuse of legal provisions, any steps taken must be approached with caution to avoid deterring genuine complainants. The Court’s decision to leave the matter to police authorities underscores the need for informed and balanced policymaking.
