Bombay High Court slammed how a rape survivor was treated during ex-Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal's trial,calling out invasive cross-examinations digging into victims' sexual pasts . The court blasted the trial court's silence as survivor's history was used against her,despite legal shields against this .
Legal experts stress that even though India's Evidence Act was changed in 2003 to block using a survivor's sexual history as evidence,old habits die hard in courtrooms. Section 155(4) once let defense lawyers paint survivor as 'immoral.' That was repealed after backlash,but stigma lingers.
The 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act reinforced this,stating a victim's character or past sexual experiences shouldn't affect consent judgment. Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act,now Section 50 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,bans questions about a victim's prior sexual conduct during cross-examination.
Yet,defense lawyers often skirt the law. Legal scholar Preeti Pratishruti Dash noted attorneys now frame questions to subtly reference survivor's character. In a gang-rape trial,defense asked why a survivor lived away from her husband and if male colleagues visited her home — implying her lifestyle was morally questionable to cast doubt on her testimony.
Courts say survivor's testimony can be enough for conviction,if it inspires confidence. Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh stressed credibility shouldn't be tainted by societal stereotypes. But survivors often face skepticism over account inconsistencies or reporting delays.
Dash highlighted how the private nature of sexual violence leaves little evidence beyond victim's testimony . Survivors may need time to process trauma before speaking out,courts often overlook this. Lack of understanding leads to disbelieving survivors,complicating justice pursuit.
Judicial biases hit sentencing too. Legal scholar Mrinal Satish's research showed stereotypes about a survivor's behavior can affect sentence severity. Men convicted of raping women seen as 'loose' or 'immoral' often got lighter sentences,showing deep judicial biases .
Advocate Bharat Chugh argues without sweeping institutional reforms,myths about a survivor's character will keep affecting rape trials . He said courts often only see a survivor's testimony as credible if she fits 'good woman' standards,chaste and reporting crime immediately.
Chugh welcomed Supreme Court's new handbook aimed at boosting gender sensitivity in legal proceedings,seeing it as a positive step to stop revictimizing survivors . But he stressed need for strict monitoring of its implementation,including surprise trial court inspections.
Legal experts assert right to fair trial,enshrined in Article 21 of Indian Constitution,should be based on facts,not stereotypes. Acquittals due to biased views undermine public trust in justice system. As Tejpal case unfolds,these entrenched biases' implications remain pressing for survivor rights advocates.
