Taking these factors into consideration and history of judicial performance in Uttar Pradesh and India, the Asian Human Rights Commission commented that the Chitrakoot case has become 'absolutely normal' practice in India. “Indeed there are inconsistencies in the girl's statements. Yet one could ask a few questions: (1) in the conditions that prevail in India, how can a girl who is allegedly a victim of rape, be expected to give consistent statements?; (2) was the girl provided any form of professional counselling before recording her statement?; (3) are there any such functioning government facilities in Uttar Pradesh?; (4) more importantly, is it for the chief minister of a state to decide who is guilty of a crime? The legal and commonsense answer to all these questions is an emphatic NO,” the AHRC said in its statement.

In a strong critique of Mayawati, the Commission said, “The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has information that immediately upon taking charge as the chief minister, Mayawati had directed the state police to discourage registering of cases. The retarded purpose behind this illegal and non-written order is to gerrymander the crime statistics in the state to show that Mayawati's government has succeeded in controlling crime. But at the same time, Mayawati has used the state police to cull down her political rivals, including those within her own party, which has been lauded by myopic political commentators and the media as ‘the new chief minister cracking down crime’.”

AHRC’s statement has not minced any words while painting a dismal picture of the state of justice in India. “In any country that claims to be respecting the rule of law, when a child accuses a person of having raped her, the minimum expectation is that the complaint will lead to an investigation and if the investigation reveals a crime, a prosecution would follow. However in India, just as Mayawati has put her foot down in this case, to declare her crony 'not guilty' without investigation or prosecution, crime control is left to the whims of the politicians and their cronies who consider themselves to be above the law or law unto themselves."

AHRC’s report has latched onto a single case while issuing this general statement about India. Its approach seems imbalanced since it has overlooked landmark cases of disbursal justice, the proactive and mature intervention of higher courts in matters of public interest, and the general existence of wide –ranging infrastructure in law in the country, which by common admission can be tardy and unjust – but so are judicial systems across the world.