YOU IDIOT, A NO MEANS NO!
sexual attack must be interpreted from the perspective of the victim.
In light of that recommendation, look at the Punjab and Harya-na High Court ruling: they not only ignored that recommendation but also several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the primary question of law when statements are made about the victim’s personal lifestyle choices (having a beer, smoking, staying out late with boys, drug taking, etc.), blackmail, which was inherent in the threat held over the victim’s head that unless she complied they would send out nude pictures of her….
The two-member bench of the High Court did note that there was attempted blackmail and it needed to be investigated. So much for the reason the victim submitted to the trauma of repeated rape and humiliation, all noted in her statements in court. Instead, the concern seems to have been that the accused should not be deprived of their education and be given an “opportunity to redeem themselves and be a part of society as normal beings” rather than with upholding relevant sections of the IPC (gangrape, criminal intimidation) or with the section of the Information Technology Act on the publishing of obscene information in electronic form.
Has any thought been spared for what it took for the victim in this case to register the case? What she must have dreaded when the accused threatened to send out nude pictures has now come to pass with this double trauma, of her personal choices being broadcast everywhere. The very issues that forced her to submit to the blackmailing by her assailants have now gone public. Sure, those pictures weren’t sent but barring that everything else has.
The Justice Verma Committee report has some pointed remarks on how and why what happens does in fact happen. The report notes: ‘The failure of good governance is the obvious root cause of the current unsafe environment eroding the rule of law and not for want of needed legislation. If there was a felt need for more laws, there are many recommendations of expert bodies and judicial decisions that remain unimplemented.’
The order of the High Court makes no reference to any previous case or precedent. Most of the order reads like a personal viewpoint, which appears to be out of sync with the current social environment. This is not to make a case for rampant smoking, drinking, drug taking or casual sex. No, it is about the right to choose to say no and mean it. A no by a girl is not a yes. It is a No! (The author is a Pune-based columnist and a senior freelance journalist)