Director of SRFTI, Debamitra Mitra is known for her stance in matters related to sexual harassment as well as certain laws in this country. After dissolving the Internal Complaints Committee for Sexual Harassment [ICC-SH] in SRFTI, a group of feminists had written to her expressing their concern regarding this move. In her reply, she had said that she was worried that some 'nefarious' 'wayward' women students of SRFTI were misusing the Sexual Harassment Act like how Section 498A and the Right to Information Act were being misused.
On 28th July, 2017, Supreme Court directed that no arrest should be made in dowry harassment cases without a preliminary inquiry being conducted. Or, there should be visible signs of injuries. Or death.
This brings us to a question that every woman or person who is aware of why these laws were put into effect, would raise. If given an opportunity. Sadly, we don't have such opportunities and if we try to find them it may be called contempt of court. The question: 'Why the question, the fear of 'misuse' in laws related to women's rights?'
Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, is another law in the list, as Debamitra Mitra pointed out. She is not alone. Many students in SRFTI, Jadavpur University and many workplaces echo Mitra's 'concern.' How do you make sure that women don't 'misuse' these laws.
Let's examine why the premise of the question itself is problematic and rooted in sexism.
1. It assumes that women have a tendency to misuse laws. For example, no other laws related to burglary, murder etc. have ever been scrutinized saying they are prone to misuse. The only difference here is that while these laws are for all people, sexual harassment and dowry related laws are exclusively for women. Therefore the assumption is that if the complainants are women, there is a chance that they 'misuse' it
2. From 1. it follows that dowry crimes, sexual harassment are issues that can be 'faked.' When someone goes to the court alleging someone of attempting to murder them, there is no question asked if the attempt itself was staged. Murder is not fit to be faked while dowry is, according to the ruling.
3. Stress on 'visible injuries' or death is comparing two forms of violence and deeming one more serious than the other. While it is true that in courts, punishment is given according to various means of gauging the severity of the crime, keeping visible injuries as a criterion for taking cognizance of a crime it definitely proclaiming that emotional abuse, verbal threats and sexual violence that don't leave marks are all less serious. Are they? You know the answer.
 |
| Even in the absence of supporting data, courts, petitioners and parliamentarians think that laws that protect women from abuse, sexual harassment and other such crimes shall be misused CC by 3.0 Mohit Singh |
On 28th July, 2017, Supreme Court directed that no arrest should be made in dowry harassment cases without a preliminary inquiry being conducted. Or, there should be visible signs of injuries. Or death.
This brings us to a question that every woman or person who is aware of why these laws were put into effect, would raise. If given an opportunity. Sadly, we don't have such opportunities and if we try to find them it may be called contempt of court. The question: 'Why the question, the fear of 'misuse' in laws related to women's rights?'
Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, is another law in the list, as Debamitra Mitra pointed out. She is not alone. Many students in SRFTI, Jadavpur University and many workplaces echo Mitra's 'concern.' How do you make sure that women don't 'misuse' these laws.
Let's examine why the premise of the question itself is problematic and rooted in sexism.
1. It assumes that women have a tendency to misuse laws. For example, no other laws related to burglary, murder etc. have ever been scrutinized saying they are prone to misuse. The only difference here is that while these laws are for all people, sexual harassment and dowry related laws are exclusively for women. Therefore the assumption is that if the complainants are women, there is a chance that they 'misuse' it
2. From 1. it follows that dowry crimes, sexual harassment are issues that can be 'faked.' When someone goes to the court alleging someone of attempting to murder them, there is no question asked if the attempt itself was staged. Murder is not fit to be faked while dowry is, according to the ruling.
3. Stress on 'visible injuries' or death is comparing two forms of violence and deeming one more serious than the other. While it is true that in courts, punishment is given according to various means of gauging the severity of the crime, keeping visible injuries as a criterion for taking cognizance of a crime it definitely proclaiming that emotional abuse, verbal threats and sexual violence that don't leave marks are all less serious. Are they? You know the answer.
Keeping these in mind, take a look at this study that was conducted in Odisha. It was found that from the year 2005 to 2010, the number of cases registered for cruelty by husband and relatives went up from 1671 to 2067. That is an increase by 24% and that, needless to say, is huge. In another study by Sreeparna Chattopadhyay, a cultural anthropologist and Assistant Professor at the Azim Premji University, Bangalore, it was found that there was no conclusive data on misuse of 498A.
So even in the absence of supporting data, courts, petitioners and parliamentarians think that laws that protect women from abuse, sexual harassment and other such crimes shall be misused.
Next time, when a woman is yelled at for two days in a row by her in-laws or her husband, when she is threatened with death, when she is not given food or is locked up, or is subjected to any form of harassment, her complaint will not be taken seriously because of lack of 'visible injuries.' It might help if she is dead but we are not sure just whom it will help after that.
Comments
Post a Comment