On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court condemned the victim blaming and shaming that are common in sexual harassment cases. The court urged the education and sensitization of males, rather than advising girls to remain vigilant [High Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra].
The Court stated that it is also necessary to instruct males on the appropriate and improper ways to interact with the other gender.
During a suo motu case regarding the recent sexual assault of two 4-year-old girls at a school in Thane’s Badlapur, Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K Chavan made the observation.
The Court observed, “We speak about victims. Why don’t we tell the boys what’s right and what’s wrong? You need to tell the boys what they shouldn’t do. Teach them to respect the other gender, respect women.. We had moral science classes. Education department needs to step in.”
It was alluding to the government-established committee that was established to investigate methods of guaranteeing the safety and security of female students in educational institutions.
The Court today recommended that the council include a retired judge, police officers, retired principals, and members of the Child Welfare Committee.
“We want all parties to come together so that they can suggest measures.”
It requested that the committee submit a comprehensive report regarding the incident.
The Court said, “We will need to make a checklist, that every school has to follow this…This is the case where things have come to light, there are cases where there is no reporting, no examination.”
It was further stated by Justice Mohite Dere,
“It all looks good on paper…Do victims know their rights? The public awareness should also be created by the State. All these GRs, committees won’t help…Has it helped so far? Unless you inculcate and imbibe all these things in kids.”
The Court reprimanded the police last week for their failure to investigate the case and their failure to take action against the school authorities for their failure to report the incident in a timely manner.
The Court reiterated during today’s hearing that the law’s mandate had not been adhered to. Birendra Saraf, the State Advocate General (AG), concurred that the matter should have been addressed with sensitivity.
The Court inquired as to whether the accused, who was employed at the school, had previously worked at any other location.
The AG stated, “He was working as a watchman in a colony. His brother is also in the school. He [accused] is married for a third time, wife’s statements are recorded. Parents are also working.”
The Court noted that the school was obligated to conduct a background investigation prior to hiring individuals. The Bench expressed apprehensions about the school authorities’ failure to report the incident when the AG stated that the same was not done.
“Illegal omission also amounts to abetment (under POCSO Act). Why was one of the accused, a teacher not arrested? Are you making her an approver?”
The AG reassured the Court that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating the case would investigate this matter and that all individuals culpable would be prosecuted.
The Court also underscored the necessity of prioritizing the acquisition of documents from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in cases governed by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
“In POCSO cases, FSL documents must be obtained as soon as possible. There should be separate Department for rape related cases.”
The proposal was also well-received by the AG.
It also cautioned media outlets against invading the privacy of the families of the victims.
The Court said, “In case communications are published without permission, we will not hesitate to issue contempt against the media houses and we will take it to the logical end. They are already traumatised by this. Don’t traumatise them again.”
The court was informed by the complainant’s counsel, advocate Sanket Garud, that a media outlet had published a phone conversation with the victim’s family without their consent.
Additionally, it cautioned against disclosing the victims’ identities.
“Media should also be sensitised. It [law against disclosure] contemplates punishment. Let them be beware of what they are doing.”
The matter will be heard by the Court again on September 3.
