Sexual assault cases call for sensitive handling of survivors, more so by the State, as it attempts to investigate and deliver justice. The Madras high court’s scathing reprimand of the Tamil Nadu Police for foisting part of the blame for the Anna University sexual assault on the survivor herself in its FIR, therefore, doesn’t seem undeserved. The language of the FIR, a copy of which was leaked to the media, and the callous publishing of the survivor’s details online, are not just anathema to justice in this particular case but also underscore persistent gaps in gender-sensitive policing.
Experts have long held rape as much a crime against the psyche as against the physiology of the survivor. Against such a backdrop, the harrowing experience of reporting the crime, participating in the investigation and trial, and dealing with the stigma that dogs survivors in a largely patriarchal society proves too daunting for most women subjected to such crimes, and cases often go unreported. It is here that a sensitive State must offer remedy and relief. This is all the more important because how the State handles crimes against women sends a signal to the larger society. So, when the police adopt a tone or stance that seems to suggest that survivors of sexual assault somehow brought it upon themselves, it is corrosive to the larger effort to bring about gender parity in society and curb misogyny.
While the Madras high court has asked important questions of police and societal attitudes, the courts too have not always acquitted themselves well on the issue. There have been several deeply troubling instances of victim-blaming by courts — they have sometimes questioned the conduct of the survivor during the ordeal and post incident, or made statements about “sexually provocative” clothing — that undermine the cause of justice in crimes against women. The problem, of course, is systemic. While gender sensitisation training of personnel — police and judiciary — is now a focus, correcting the imbalance in gender representation has proceeded at a painfully slow pace. Women account for less than a fifth of the police in the country and just above a tenth of the higher judiciary. Unless this is addressed, it may be hard to move the needle on gender-sensitive policing and justice delivery. The Anna University case is yet another example of what those in authority must not do. Steps must be taken to stop this.
{{/usCountry}}While the Madras high court has asked important questions of police and societal attitudes, the courts too have not always acquitted themselves well on the issue. There have been several deeply troubling instances of victim-blaming by courts — they have sometimes questioned the conduct of the survivor during the ordeal and post incident, or made statements about “sexually provocative” clothing — that undermine the cause of justice in crimes against women. The problem, of course, is systemic. While gender sensitisation training of personnel — police and judiciary — is now a focus, correcting the imbalance in gender representation has proceeded at a painfully slow pace. Women account for less than a fifth of the police in the country and just above a tenth of the higher judiciary. Unless this is addressed, it may be hard to move the needle on gender-sensitive policing and justice delivery. The Anna University case is yet another example of what those in authority must not do. Steps must be taken to stop this.
{{/usCountry}}