_edited_edited.jpg)
In 2018, the #MeToo movement took India by storm. The movement gave a voice to all those people who felt victimized against unwanted sexual advances. It gave a safe platform to all those people who felt bound by the chains of society. However, you would be lying if you say that a movement where the public decides the judgment based on one side does not have its dark side.
A movement directed towards the safeguarding of traumatized individuals gave rise to a slogan called "believe women," but is it accurate to associate a specific gender with a movement like this? The Constitution of India gives the fundamental right to equality before the law (Article 14) and prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, caste, race, sex, or place of birth to all the people within the territory of India (Article 15).
When cases like Jasleen Kaur, Hitesha (Zomato Case), or Lucknow Girl case come into the limelight, it becomes necessary for the public to analyze if our legal framework actually follows the basic rule of equality.
In the viral video of Lucknow, the girl was slapping the cab driver without any provocation. There are laws like Section 354 in the Indian Penal Code, 1960, that protect the woman from any force that is made with an intent to outrage her modesty. Women are also protected from any words or gestures that are directed towards them with an intention to insult their modesty under Section 509 in the Indian Penal Code, 1960.
However, there are no such laws made for other genders. After the Nirbhaya rape case, the Union Government agreed to make the legislation more gender-neutral. In the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee, they suggested that the word "women" should get replaced with "person" in all the legislation related to sexual violence. Still, the amendment never happened after receiving criticisms from various feminist groups.
In 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that they have come across a large number of dowry harassment complaints, made under Section 498A (Indian Penal Code), that were not even bonafide and were filled with oblique motive. It was held in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand that the increasing number of dowry harassments is a serious issue. However, cases made with a malign intention can ruin the life of an individual.
In 2018, The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL of Mr. Rishi Malhotra seeking for gender neutrality in grievous crimes such as rape, sexual assault, outraging modesty, stalking, and voyeurism stating that,
"Legislations come as a response to social and collective cry. These sections are victim oriented and Parliament has acknowledged a woman as the victim."
Our legal frameworks seemed to have forgotten that associating one gender as a "victim" is not what "Equality before Law" signified.
In conclusion, gender-neutral laws should be the essence of our Constitution. Sexual Harassment laws must extend its protection to females, males, as well as transgender people. Naming one gender as the victim is not only discriminatory to other genders but also derogatory to the victimized gender as well.
For a more detailed understanding, refer to the case study of "Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State of Jharkhand & Anr" by clicking the link below.
Comments