AG calls for greater role for women in judiciary to help sexual crime victims
NEW DELHI: Attorney general KK Venugopal told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that if gender stereotypes against victims of sexual crimes had to end, the Supreme Court should make a beginning by giving greater representation to women at all levels of the judiciary.
In a note submitted to the court on the need for sensitizing j udges against passing orders and making remarks in sexual crimes that tend to trivialize the crime, the country’s top law officer said: “Improving the representation of women in the judiciary could also go a long way towards a more balanced and empathetic approach in cases involving sexual violence.”
At present, the gender ratio in the j udiciary is skewed against women. Out of 1,113 judges in the high courts and Supreme Court, only 80 are women (roughly 7.2%), with the apex court having two women judges. Six high courts do not have a single sitting woman judge. No woman has ever become the Chief Justice of India. Similar gender data is not available for subordinate judiciary or tribunals, the note prepared by Venugopal said.
“The goal must be to achieve at least 50% representation of women in all leadership positions,” Venugopal said, adding: “This initiative must come from the Supreme Court itself, considering that the power of appointment rests almost
exclusively with Supreme Court Collegium.”
The AG found certain “outlandish” conditions imposed by some HC judges while granting bail to sexual offenders. These i ncluded the victim tying a rakhi on the alleged offender, the offender serving as a Covid-19 warrior, allowing bail to facilitate marriage between the victim and the accused, among others.
A detailed list of such offending orders was produced before the court by advocate Aparna Bhatt, on whose petition the court initiated the exercise of seeking the attorney general’s views and laying down t he parameters for judges to avoid handing down orders or making comments having the potential for causing disrepute to the victim or trivializing the crime.
Venugopal said: “Any judge who wants to pass such an order must place themselves in the shoes of the victim and assess the crime as if the same had been committed on a member of their own family.”