KOCHI: Two bail verdicts in sexual harassment cases filed against social activist Civic Chandran have shocked Kerala. In the first case, on August 2, the court observed the accused was shorter than the victim and, hence, “prima facie”, the alleged incident would not have been possible. It was also of the view that an activist fighting for the rights of the downtrodden was, “prima facie”, unlikely to sexually harass a woman from an underprivileged background.
Granting bail to Chandran, Kozhikode District Sessions Court Judge S Krishnakumar noted “the (accused) is writing and fighting for a casteless society”. “In such a circumstance it is highly unbelievable that he will touch the body of the victim fully knowing that she is a member of scheduled caste (sic),” he added.
Sounds bizarre?
However, what really stirred a hornet’s nest was the judge’s remarks while granting bail to Chandran on Wednesday in another sexual harassment case filed by a writer. According to the FIR, the incident took place when she had attended a poetry camp along with Chandran near Nandi beach in Kozhikode.
Judge Krishnakumar noted: “The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that the defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative ones. So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused (sic).” He added that “it was impossible to believe a man having aged 74 and physically disabled can forcefully put the defacto complainant in his lap and sexually press her breast (sic)”.
‘Male chauvinism’
Former High Court judge B Kemal Pasha minces no words as he slams the judgments. “This is, basically, male chauvinism,” he says. “Men have no right to decide what a woman should wear. In the Nirbhaya case, the Supreme Court had heavily criticised the defence, when it asked why the victim had been out late at night with her boyfriend. This country provides equal rights to men and women. These kinds of judgments clearly go against the spirit of equality.”
Justice Pasha adds that these cases are “examples of how a person’s individual views could affect judgments”.
‘Lack of gender sensitisation’
Activist-lawyer J Sandhya says the judgments are clear examples of gender stereotyping, too. “Such judgments might create fear among victims who want to come out and file cases against their harassers,” she adds. “More women would decide to stay silent, fearing criticism. Victims would start believing they themselves are to be blamed for the crimes against them.”
Sandhya terms the reference to the victim’s dressing “shocking”. There are clear precedents that say, in such cases, “a victim’s character or dressing cannot be blamed”, she adds.
“Such judgments show the lack of gender sensitisation among the judiciary,” says Sandhya. “Of course, the defence will try to get bail for their client. However, in this case, the judge has based the bail on her clothes and his age.”
‘Will affect investigation’
Though the case proceedings have just begun, the judge has implied that prima facie, the accused appears to be innocent, adds Sandhya. “Without proper investigation, how can a judge make such statements?” she wonders.
“The judge has said, prima facie, there is no case against the accused. This will affect the investigation, and the accused can easily get himself exonerated by approaching the High Court based on this judgment. The judgments in both the cases would have far-reaching consequences in the investigation.”
‘Same old story’
“This is the same old story of blaming the victim,” says Tessa Sarah Kuriakose, a firebrand student activist at UC College in Aluva. “A respected court is defending an alleged predator, pointing to the clothes of the survivor. It is sad that things remain the same even now. I am just a college student. In my humble opinion, the courts should be more careful in making such regressive statements, especially in such high-profile cases involving prominent figures.”
‘Rapes will go unreported’
Actor Jolly Chirayath terms the ‘dressing’ judgment “highly regressive and dangerous”.
“I think if someone justifies sexual assault in court, pointing towards the victim’s clothes, it should be treated as a separate crime,” she says. “We expect the courts to correct such prejudice. However, here, the complete opposite has happened.”
Jolly believes the judgment would further justify society’s “moralistic view of a woman”.
“‘She is outspoken; look at her clothes; she asked for it;’ These are things some elements of society say about survivors. Unfortunate that such a stance has come from a court.”
The “dangerous part”, according to her, is that now more women would be reluctant to speak out when they face atrocities. “Rapes will go unreported,” she says. “And, such a debate is happening when we are discussing gender politics, gender-neutral uniforms, etc. Pathetic.”
‘Even sex workers can file cases’
Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy founder Sandhya Raju George says “there are clear precedents from the Supreme Court that highlight a victim’s clothes, character, background, etc, are inconsequential in such cases”. “Even sex workers can file rape cases if there was no consent. This judgment sets us back by years,” she adds.
Sandhya Raju, too, points to ineffective gender sensitisation training. “It is unbelievable that even in 2022, we hear such statements,” she adds. “Every government official — including those in judiciary and police — is supposed to go through gender sensitisation training. But there is no systematic approach or curriculum.”
‘Safety net for activists’
Writer and social activist Rekha Raj terms both judgments “atrocious”. “The outrage is not about the accused, but the judgments,” she says. “One of the judgments implies as he (Civic Chandran) is a Dalit rights activist, so he won’t harm a Dalit woman. This gives activists a safety net. Being an advocate for human rights doesn’t mean such a person would never commit a crime.”
Rekha rues that “one still has to defend a person’s clothing choices” in this age. “Also, people who are over the age of 80 are active in politics, acting, social work, etc. How can the age of the accused be a factor in such a case? ”
Rape can happen anywhere, she adds. “At home, school or even in public places. People close to you, old or young, can harm you. It is high time that the victim’s choices, dressing, character or even past, became irrelevant in such cases,” she says.
“Many victims will be reluctant to come out against their harassers, especially if they are prominent figures in society.”
‘Matter of concern’
Kerala Women’s Commission chief P Satheedevi says “it is highly concerning that courts are defending crimes against women based on individual choices such as clothing.” “By making such references even before the evidence is presented and the trial is held, the court is effectively dismissing the allegations of the complainant. This sends a very wrong message,” she adds.