Latest instance comes in Civic Chandran's bail order, despite clear Supreme Court directions against misogynistic judgements.
Published Aug 18, 2022 | 5:34 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 18, 2022 | 6:11 PM
Civic Chandran. (Creative Commons)
A sessions court in Kozhikode on Wednesday, 17 August, granted anticipatory bail to the 74-year-old author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case.
While granting bail, the court observed that the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code did not prima facie apply as the woman was wearing “sexually provocative dresses”.
The statement triggered outrage, with lawyers and social activists reacting strongly to the court’s observations in the bail order.
This is the second sexual-offence case against Chandran. Earlier, the district court in Kozhikode granted him bail in a case lodged by a writer in July.
Sandhya Raju, the managing director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA), told South First: “In many such cases, the trauma a woman goes through is not taken into account by the court. What is taken into account is the character and modesty of the woman. The courts often do not consider the woman is a victim of the abuse.”
On 17 March last year, the Supreme Court, while setting aside an order by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, asked judges to refrain from misogynistic orders and statements.
The judgement by Justice SR Bhat also mentioned a quote by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen: “A woman cannot be herself in the society of the present day, which is an exclusively masculine society, with laws framed by men and with a judicial system that judges feminine conduct from a masculine point of view.”
Although Kerala courts have made numerous progressive and gender-sensitive judgements, certain cases from the recent past show there is still a long way to go.
Here are some of the instances where the courts in Kerala crossed the line and made misogynistic statements or orders in the recent past.
1. Bail order of Civic Chandran
The anticipatory bail order for Civic Chandran is the latest in the list of misogynistic orders by courts in Kerala. The order by sessions judge BB Srikumar contains multiple outrageous and misogynistic observations.
“Here it is to be noted that the de facto complainant is an educated lady who is fully aware of the consequences of sexual assault. Why she was reluctant to file a complaint has to be explained by her. But absolutely no explanation is forthcoming,” the court order said.
The court noted that 74-year-old Chandran’s elder daughter is a deputy collector and younger daughter is an assistant professor, and said: “It is quite unfortunate that a lady having an age of 30 had filed a complaint against the accused who has a good reputation in the society.”
Chandran, through his counsel, submitted photographs of the survivor from her social media, to which the court said in its order that the complainant was exposing her body with sexually provocative dresses.
Advocate Bhadra, who appeared before the court on behalf of the survivor, said the order takes us a few steps backward.
“The Supreme Court and high courts are continuously giving guidelines and orders on gender-sensitisation. Even after all this, a judgement like this is coming from a court in Kerala,” she told South First.
“In cases like these, the Supreme Court and the high court have repeatedly said that the trauma of a survivor should be taken into account and the delay should not have been a subject to give the anticipatory bail,” she added.
Kerala Women’s Rights Commission reaction
As soon as the news broke, Kerala Women’s Rights Commission Chairperson P Sathidevi, who is also a member of the CPI(M)’s Central Committee, posted on Facebook: “It is very worrying that the courts are going to the extent of justifying heinous attacks on women by merely pointing out the dress worn by an individual. These are purely personal choices.”
Sathidevi, who is also a former lawyer and an MP, said in her post that the court made such references even before the evidence was presented or the trial was held.
“This, in reality, is dismissing the allegations of the complainant and sends a very wrong message in serious cases like rape,” she added.
She opined that it was unfortunate that bail was given to the veteran writer and social activist on that note.
2. The Hadiya Case
In May 2017, the Kerala High Court annulled the marriage of Hadiya, earlier Akhila Ashokan, to a Muslim man on the grounds that she was a victim of “indoctrination and psychological kidnapping”. Women’s rights activists at that time decried the misogyny of the court.
The court, for instance, observed: “As per Indian tradition, the custody of an unmarried daughter is with the parents until she is properly married.”
It then made her stay in the custody of her father, Ashokan, even though Hadiya, an adult, insisted that she had converted to Islam of her own free will and was not coerced into marriage.
The high court also remarked that a girl aged 24 was weak and vulnerable and could be exploited. It also said that her marriage must happen after active discussion with her parents.
However, this was challenged in the Supreme Court and the apex court restored the legal validity of the marriage.
3. Bishop Franco Case
Franco Mulakkal, the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Jalandhar, was accused of raping a nun multiple times during his visit to the Missionaries of Jesus Convent in Kerala.
The nun was the Mother Superior General of the convent at the time.
On 14 January this year, Kottayam Additional Sessions Court judge Gopakumar G, in a 289-page judgment, acquitted Mulakkal citing “inconsistencies” in the testimony of the nun.
The court also assumed in its judgement that the nun could be of “questionable character”.
