M A I N   N E W S

At all-party meet, SP, BSP may oppose anti-rape Bill
Aditi Tandon/TNS

New Delhi, March 17
The tedious run of the Criminal Laws Amendment Bill is far from over. Fresh indications are that the Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party may oppose the inclusion of stalking and voyeurism as specific offences under the proposed draft anti-rape Bill.

The Bill, scheduled to be taken up at an all-party meeting on Monday, has remained in controversy on two specific provisions — the age of consent and the codification of sexual offences for the first time — starting from stalking, disrobing and voyeurism to rape and gang rape.

Head of the legal cell of the Samajwadi Party, Gaurav Bhatia, said the inclusion of these offences in the anti-rape law wasn’t necessary as these offences could be misused. The SP, he says, will oppose their inclusion and seek that they be kept out of the ambit of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2013 that will replace the February 3 ordinance promulgated by the President on the matter. The Bill must be passed by both the Houses of Parliament by March 22 (the day Budget session breaks for recess) if the ordinance is to be prevented from lapsing on April 4.

Top sources in the UPA Government also admit that forging a consensus on the Bill and getting it passed is an uphill task that may not be accomplished by March 22. The Bill will most likely be referred to the Select Committee of Parliament.

Meanwhile, the BSP is also likely to oppose stalking and voyeurism on the same grounds that these offences may be abused against men.

There is likelihood that both these parties may also raise the issue of age of consent under the new law. The law proposes 16 years as the age of consent, which is higher than what Muslim family law permits. Muslim family law allows a girl who has attained puberty (mostly 12 or 13 years these days) to get married. The BSP and SP may seek clarification or exception in the new Bill on the age of consent issue.

Women’s activists, however, say stalking and voyeurism are defined too specifically in the new Bill to be misused. Vrinda Grover, Supreme Court lawyer says, “The offence of voyeurism as defined in Section 354 IPC is very pointed in scope and has no possibility of abuse. In villages and towns where the poor don’t have the luxury of private bathrooms, this offence is critically important to protect women from sexual predators, who watch or film them in private acts. There’s proof of rural women not using public toilets for the fear of being watched. Further, stalking is relevant because there’s overwhelming evidence to show that stalkers, if not stopped, can become rapists and murderers. They can throw acid on victims. Only in situations where a man repeatedly follows a woman, either physically or through the Internet, and causes her distress, will stalking be recognised as a crime.”

Smaller political parties such as the CPI, CPM, BJD and Akali Dal had no information on the proposed all party-meet and government sources said they had not been invited.