Disturbing government apathy to Justice Verma panel report
Shyam Khosla
JUSTICE J S Verma Committee on sexual violence against women has demonstrated its commitment to the society by producing a comprehensive and thorough report – albeit controversial in parts—within a short span of 29 days. The voluminous report contains recommendations to amend existing laws to make them more stringent and an expansive definition of rape. If the law is amended as proposed, a woman can accuse a person of rape even if she didn’t offer physical resistance to penetration.
One of the major recommendations is that law on marital rape must come into play even if the wife is above 15 years of age. Currently, marital rape is punishable only when it is committed against an underage wife below 15. It also contains a caveat: “Consent will not be presumed in the event of an existing marital relationship between the complainant and the accused.” The panel also recommended the Right to private defence to the point of killing a man if there is reasonable cause for apprehending grievous hurt from an acid attack. This provision will be in addition to the existing right to kill somebody involved in an assault with the intention of committing rape or gratifying unnatural lust. A unique feature of the report is a proposed women’s “Bill of Rights” that appears to be abstract principles. Whether these rights will be actually conferred on the women through statutory amendments is a moot point. Right against voyeurism (A woman can seek prosecution of somebody who without her consent watch her while she is engaged in a private act) and Right against stalking (A woman can lodge a complaint against somebody who follows and contacts her despite a clear indication of disinterest by her) are major components of the “Bill of Rights”.
As for punishment for rape, the Committee refrainedfrom prescribing capital punishment for gang rape. It instead recommended a minimum imprisonment of 20 years. This recommendation is based on the unanimity among leaders of women groups that made representations to the committee against death sentence for gang rape. It also rejected the clamour for mandatory chemical castration of any type for sexual offences against women on the ground that it would violate human rights standards. Justice Verma later explained that in case of death of a rape victim, provisions under section 302 (murder) would automatically come into force. Although the committee was mandated to come out with recommendations to strengthen laws to deal with sexual violence against women, it thought it fit to suggest police reforms to attain a standard of policing based on “positive and cooperative” relationship between the police and the society. Interestingly, Supreme Court of India had ordered wide ranging police reforms while disposing of a PIL several years ago. But there was little movement in that direction largely because of the resistance from the political class. The latter is opposed to autonomy to the police on the ground that since the government of the day is accountable to the legislature and the people on maintenance of law and order, it needs control over the police force. Under the circumstances there is little hope of the Government implementing panel’s recommendations on police reforms.
Unsurprisingly, there is widespread anger among the people over the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision to declare the sixth accused in the brutal Delhi gang rape a minor basing its decision on his date of birth in the school records. The sixth accuse in gang rape case that provoked spontaneous and prolonged street protests was allegedly the most brutal and violent among the rapists and is said to have caused fatal injuries to the victim. On what ground the Board rejected Delhi Police’s plea for a bone ossification test to ascertain the juvenility of the accused is not clear. If the Board’s decision stands, the sixth accused would walk free in a few months when he will turn an adult. He was just a few months short of 18 when he committed the crime. No juvenile criminal whether 16 or 18 should be let-off so easily. The enormity of the crime committed by the sixth accused should be taken into consideration while pronouncing punishment if and when he is found guilty. The country needs strong system and tougher laws to deal with underage delinquents who commit horrible crimes. Keeping them in reformatories for a few months is unlikely to change their criminal mindset.
Panel’s most controversial recommendation pertains to amendment of the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) to incorporate “breach of command responsibility” that will hold a commanding officer responsible if a junior commits a sexual assault on a woman. It has alarmed security force to no end. Service rules prevent serving officers to speak on record, but countless COs are arguing on internet that this concept is totally unacceptable as it is not humanly possible for COs to pre-empt any sexual abuse by an individual soldier. This provision, if accepted and enforced, will encourage right groups that are often the front of secessionists and underground movements and separatists to implicate security personnel in crimes against women. How can an officer commanding a battalion be held responsible if one of his juniors sent on a patrol duty goes morally astray or is wrongly accused of the crime by supporters of secessionist elements? It is a proposal fraught with dangerous consequences. Already there are countless cases in which security forces are falsely implicated in cases of sexual assaults in J&K, North-east and Naxal-affected areas. This recommendation of the Committee needs to be shelved. If it is implemented, it may demoralise the security forces that are battling against heavy odds in disturbed area. What needs to be done is to sensitise security forces about the sanctity of womanhood and sensitivity of the issue. Armed forces must redouble their efforts to win the confidence of the civilian population even in disturbed areas.
The three-member committee comprising Justice Verma, Justice Sheila Seth and former Solicitor General Gopal Sumbramaniam did a commendable job to wade through about 80,000 submissions with the help of a team of dedicated lawyers commandeered by the former Solicitor General. The Government did little to show its commitment. Justice Verma laments that the Government didn’t provide the requisite manpower and infrastructure. It wouldn’t be off the mark to presume that the Government neither wanted nor expected the panel to promptly come out with a landmark report. The report, one hope, will generate a lively public debate. Will it be too much to expect from this insensitive and sluggish government to expedite the process of legislating on some of its non-controversial recommendations?
