Systemic change, not a quick fix, can tackle gender violence
From the horrific 2012 Nirbhaya case in Delhi to the chilling Abhaya case in Kolkata, India has witnessed a surge in legal reforms meant to curb sexual violence and ensure justice for victims. Laws have become stricter, sentences harsher and policies more rigid. Yet, despite these legal advancements, the ground reality remains largely unchanged. A haunting question arises: why do these laws fail to bring about the expected change in society?
Andhra Pradesh’s Disha Bill, Maharashtra’s Shakti Bill and West Bengal’s Aparajita Bill are quick-fix solutions to a deep, underlying rot. While the process of making a law is typically long and deliberate, the Aparajita Bill was introduced less than a month after the Kolkata rape-murder. The Disha and Shakti Bills were also swiftly enacted following heinous crimes against women. Criminal laws fall under the Concurrent List, requiring the President’s nod, and enacting such laws suggest political manoeuvring and diffusing responsibility, while simultaneously brushing real issues under the carpet.
Laws, however well-crafted, are inanimate — they exist on paper. The challenge lies in how these laws are implemented, interpreted, and enforced. This is where the animate components of the justice system — the police officers, judges, and society — come into play, breathing life into the inanimate laws. If these animate components fail to respond adequately, even the most stringent laws become ineffective. We must recognise this distinction, or we will continue to struggle in achieving true justice.
Historically, efforts to achieve gender equality often provoke a backlash that can lead to an increase in crimes against women, particularly sexual offences, until genuine equality is realised. Research studies and reports from the UN and WHO show that progress in gender equality can trigger hostility and increased violence against women as a means to reassert traditional power structures. This pattern, noted in journals like Violence Against Women and Lancet, highlights the need for comprehensive strategies to address both gender biases and the protection of women during these changes.
From 2018 to 2022, conviction rate in rape cases in India was around 28 per cent, the second lowest among serious crimes, including murder, kidnapping, rioting and grievous hurt, according to the National Crime Records Bureau.
In contrast, Britain’s rape conviction rate was 60.2 per cent in 2023-24 and 63.5 per cent the year before, according to the Crown Prosecution Service. In Canada, 42 per cent of the sexual assault cases resulted in convictions in 2016-17, as reported by the Department of Justice.
India’s low conviction rates are partly due to judges’ reluctance to convict under stringent laws, fearing life sentences or death penalties based on insufficient evidence. Besides, stricter laws, combined with the fact that most victims know their assailant, suggest a higher risk of murder in such cases. Instead of solely advocating for harsher penalties, it is crucial to focus on understanding the victim’s psychology and effectively rebutting defence arguments. The Swedish approach, which led to a 75 per cent increase in rape conviction rates over two years after a 2018 law change, emphasises the importance of removing the need to prove violence or threats.
The term ‘fast-track’ courts is self-defeating; despite advocating speedy trial, rape cases in India still take a long time due to inadequate judicial infrastructure and a shortage of judicial officers, cops, judges and public prosecutors. The high pendency of cases increases the likelihood of flawed investigations, potentially allowing perpetrators to escape justice. Hasty investigations can lead to tampering with evidence and coercion of crucial witnesses. Completing the investigation in even 21 days is practically impossible.
Once an FIR is filed, the investigating officer must collect evidence, ensure the survivor’s safety, conduct medical examinations, request police custody for further investigation, address rehabilitation schemes, conduct identification parades and prepare for numerous court hearings. Additionally, the officer must corroborate evidence, prepare the chargesheet, coordinate with the public prosecutor, and frame charges. If the offender is absconding in another state, arresting them becomes more complex and time-consuming. A proper trial typically requires at least five hearings, involving the survivor, police, public prosecutor, accused, defence counsel, witnesses and the court itself. Completing all this in three or four weeks increases the possibility of a shoddy probe.
Sexual violence survivors often face secondary victimisation, particularly during stressful and judgmental police interviews. This can result in incomplete statements, poor investigation and conviction. To address this, there is an urgent need for trauma-informed policing. Such police forces understand the impact of trauma and incorporate practices such as specialised training, interdisciplinary collaboration and empathy. Effective leadership is crucial for implementing these best practices and improving responses to rape cases.
“Good laws alone do not create a just society; what is needed above all is a change in mindset,” said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, addressing issues concerning women in India. This sentiment was echoed by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who emphasised that our male-centric society must change its mindset before it is too late. In indictment of this societal decay, we have witnessed the horrifying spectacle of fathers violating their own daughters, and even children, perpetrating such heinous acts. The recent incident in Ujjain, where bystanders filmed rather than help a rape victim, further highlights this moral decline.
Unless we develop a comprehensive strategy to address sexual violence, rather than resorting to measures like the death penalty for rapists, we merely risk appeasing public sentiment without addressing the root causes. Such superficial steps are intended to pacify the public with a short memory and limited understanding of the complexities of violent sexual crimes. We end up creating symbolic victim identities like Nirbhaya and Abhaya, whose bravery is reduced to case studies in legal and social journals. To truly honour and protect victims, we must implement deep systemic changes that tackle the underlying issues of gender violence.
