Journalist Taran Tejpal's plea that his victim's status as a “liberated, emancipated modern woman” should be considered in deciding his application for bail has been sharply criticised by women's rights activists.
Welcoming the Goa court's opinion on Friday that the woman's character or history would play no role in deciding the issue of consent in the case of sexual assault against Tejpal, these activists said any attempt to argue otherwise was reprehensible.
In his bail application, Tarun Tejpal, the former editor-in-chief of Tehelka magazine who has been accused of sexually assaulting a former employee, had argued that "the social background of the victim, her persona, sense of understanding and values are relevant factors in deciding the application". He said that "a purely consensual act has been turned into a criminal act". The court did not agree. Tejpal has been in custody since November 30.
Activists have slammed Tejpal's line of defence. "The fact that Tejpal, who instituted Tehelka, is making this argument shows that all the values that Tehelka said it stood for are clearly being turned on their head," said Kavita Krishnan, general secretary of the All India Progressive Women's Association, a group that works with marginal communities.
In the bail application, Tejpal's lawyer, Amit Desai, had also argued that "the victim is an educated emancipated woman who wanted the apology to be printed on the letterhead of Tehelka" and could not be compared with "a girl from a tradition-bound non-permissive society of India who would be extremely reluctant to make such revelation in fear of being shunned by the family or society".
Referring to a Supreme Court verdict that had made such a distinction, Tejpal and his lawyer argued that the victim's background was relevant in deciding the veracity of her allegations.
"There have been court verdicts that have used this argument," said Krishnan. "But it an odious argument all the same. It implies that a modern woman can never complain of rape. What can be the possible ethical ground for such an argument when there is so much evidence to the contrary?"
This is precisely the sort of argument against which women's groups have been battling for years, said Veena Gowda, a Mumbai-based women's rights lawyer. "Constantly, the woman is the one being put on trial," she said. "The victim's character is being questioned even before the trial has begun."
She pointed out that the amendments to the rape law, made after the horrific Delhi gang-rape in December 2012, had a specific clause stating that the woman's past history and previous sexual conduct could not be brought into the argument. "Why are these arguments even being mentioned in a bail application?" she asked. "It is an attempt to prejudge the case."
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Welcoming the Goa court's opinion on Friday that the woman's character or history would play no role in deciding the issue of consent in the case of sexual assault against Tejpal, these activists said any attempt to argue otherwise was reprehensible.
In his bail application, Tarun Tejpal, the former editor-in-chief of Tehelka magazine who has been accused of sexually assaulting a former employee, had argued that "the social background of the victim, her persona, sense of understanding and values are relevant factors in deciding the application". He said that "a purely consensual act has been turned into a criminal act". The court did not agree. Tejpal has been in custody since November 30.
Activists have slammed Tejpal's line of defence. "The fact that Tejpal, who instituted Tehelka, is making this argument shows that all the values that Tehelka said it stood for are clearly being turned on their head," said Kavita Krishnan, general secretary of the All India Progressive Women's Association, a group that works with marginal communities.
In the bail application, Tejpal's lawyer, Amit Desai, had also argued that "the victim is an educated emancipated woman who wanted the apology to be printed on the letterhead of Tehelka" and could not be compared with "a girl from a tradition-bound non-permissive society of India who would be extremely reluctant to make such revelation in fear of being shunned by the family or society".
Referring to a Supreme Court verdict that had made such a distinction, Tejpal and his lawyer argued that the victim's background was relevant in deciding the veracity of her allegations.
"There have been court verdicts that have used this argument," said Krishnan. "But it an odious argument all the same. It implies that a modern woman can never complain of rape. What can be the possible ethical ground for such an argument when there is so much evidence to the contrary?"
This is precisely the sort of argument against which women's groups have been battling for years, said Veena Gowda, a Mumbai-based women's rights lawyer. "Constantly, the woman is the one being put on trial," she said. "The victim's character is being questioned even before the trial has begun."
She pointed out that the amendments to the rape law, made after the horrific Delhi gang-rape in December 2012, had a specific clause stating that the woman's past history and previous sexual conduct could not be brought into the argument. "Why are these arguments even being mentioned in a bail application?" she asked. "It is an attempt to prejudge the case."
