A Chennai High Court judge has granted bail to 25-year-old V Mohan, who was convicted last year for raping a 15-year-old girl in 2008. The judge, P Devadass, directed that the case be settled through mediation. Lawyers and retired judges have said that the judge has shown very poor judgement. But it is rather more than just poor judgement. The ruling reveals an attitude to rape in segments of the judiciary that results in women being denied justice.
While passing the bail order, the judge declared: “The victim-girl has become mother of a child. But as on date, she is nobody’s wife. So she is an unwed mother…Generally, in this type of cases, the girl concerned is stated to be a victim, but really speaking the child born out of such a physical contact is also a victim.”
He concluded: “In the facts and circumstances, the case before us is a fit case for attempting compromise between the parties.” And so, bail is justified in order that the rapist is “…enabled to participate in the deliberations as a free man and vent his feelings, open his mind and moorings”.
A former law officer in Chennai believes the judge has done well: “Let us face it, a rape victim is never treated as a ‘normal’ unmarried girl. In this case, there is a child, which would be called ‘illegitimate’ for the rest of its life. Courts are here not just to punish people, they must do justice to victims as well. The offender could even be hanged, but does it bring full justice to the girl? Justice Devadass has tried to show the humane face of courts.”
Different yardsticks
The judge and those who defend him reveal a great deal about their “mind and moorings”. For the compromise that they expect is marriage, which will offer legitimacy to the child and liberty to the rapist. The woman is not considered except as “nobody’s wife” and an “unwed mother”.
While passing the order in Mohan’s favour, Justice Devadass referred to another rape case (where the victim had become pregnant) in which he had granted bail to the rapist and called for mediation. This case, he said, was “proceeding towards a happy resolution” as the rapist had agreed to marry his victim. He hoped that Mohan’s victim could reach a similar “happy resolution”.
The girl Mohan raped is now a 22-year-old woman working in a spinning mill. She wants nothing to do with him. But the judge clearly thinks he knows what’s best for her. He has ensured that Mohan, whose home is on the same street as hers, is already back there. Mohan and his family have reason to be thrilled with the order. They have been trying to get their son’s victim to agree to marry him. It is the only way to keep him from being convicted and jailed.
In earlier cases of rape – of small children and where policemen were the accused – Justice Devadass appears to have taken an altogether different view. Ruling against an appeal in the case of rape of a child, he held, “In these days, increasingly women and children are becoming target of lust of men. It is a motiveless crime. It is a beast behavior. Such kind of criminal behavior does not deserve sympathy. Such kind of vultures cannot be spared lightly. In the administration of criminal justice, pitiable plight of the victims cannot be lost sight of.”
Prejudices in society
Why then would the very same judge rule that a “happy resolution” was possible in another case of such criminal behaviour? It is par for the course in our society to blame women for the crimes committed against them. The victim was an adolescent girl. More people than not are likely to believe that she was not “modest” enough and so was guilty of having left herself open to the “lust of men”. Should we assume that a judge, who is mandated to serve the cause of justice, but directs mediations and “compromise” and “happy resolutions” in a case of rape, must believe that the woman was not unwilling?
For the judge’s varied rulings appear to suggest that there is rape, which in his words is “criminal behavior [that] does not deserve sympathy” and the full force of law. And then there is this other rape that is somehow not quite rape. What the judge seems to be saying is that in these cases of somehow-not-quite rape, the “pitiable plight of the victims” is a result not of being raped and made pregnant, but of being “nobody’s wife” or an “unwed mother” and so he must use the full force of his high office to set this right.
What Justice Devadass has done remarkably well is set out the prejudices that exist in our society and exemplify how the high judiciary reinforces them. His direction to mediate is no different from the ruling of a Khap Panchayat or an extra-judicial community court that calls for “compromise”. It denies the gravity of the crime, a woman’s right to justice and her autonomy of will. And it converts the heinous crime of rape into a piffling social misdemeanour.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
While passing the bail order, the judge declared: “The victim-girl has become mother of a child. But as on date, she is nobody’s wife. So she is an unwed mother…Generally, in this type of cases, the girl concerned is stated to be a victim, but really speaking the child born out of such a physical contact is also a victim.”
He concluded: “In the facts and circumstances, the case before us is a fit case for attempting compromise between the parties.” And so, bail is justified in order that the rapist is “…enabled to participate in the deliberations as a free man and vent his feelings, open his mind and moorings”.
A former law officer in Chennai believes the judge has done well: “Let us face it, a rape victim is never treated as a ‘normal’ unmarried girl. In this case, there is a child, which would be called ‘illegitimate’ for the rest of its life. Courts are here not just to punish people, they must do justice to victims as well. The offender could even be hanged, but does it bring full justice to the girl? Justice Devadass has tried to show the humane face of courts.”
Different yardsticks
The judge and those who defend him reveal a great deal about their “mind and moorings”. For the compromise that they expect is marriage, which will offer legitimacy to the child and liberty to the rapist. The woman is not considered except as “nobody’s wife” and an “unwed mother”.
While passing the order in Mohan’s favour, Justice Devadass referred to another rape case (where the victim had become pregnant) in which he had granted bail to the rapist and called for mediation. This case, he said, was “proceeding towards a happy resolution” as the rapist had agreed to marry his victim. He hoped that Mohan’s victim could reach a similar “happy resolution”.
The girl Mohan raped is now a 22-year-old woman working in a spinning mill. She wants nothing to do with him. But the judge clearly thinks he knows what’s best for her. He has ensured that Mohan, whose home is on the same street as hers, is already back there. Mohan and his family have reason to be thrilled with the order. They have been trying to get their son’s victim to agree to marry him. It is the only way to keep him from being convicted and jailed.
In earlier cases of rape – of small children and where policemen were the accused – Justice Devadass appears to have taken an altogether different view. Ruling against an appeal in the case of rape of a child, he held, “In these days, increasingly women and children are becoming target of lust of men. It is a motiveless crime. It is a beast behavior. Such kind of criminal behavior does not deserve sympathy. Such kind of vultures cannot be spared lightly. In the administration of criminal justice, pitiable plight of the victims cannot be lost sight of.”
Prejudices in society
Why then would the very same judge rule that a “happy resolution” was possible in another case of such criminal behaviour? It is par for the course in our society to blame women for the crimes committed against them. The victim was an adolescent girl. More people than not are likely to believe that she was not “modest” enough and so was guilty of having left herself open to the “lust of men”. Should we assume that a judge, who is mandated to serve the cause of justice, but directs mediations and “compromise” and “happy resolutions” in a case of rape, must believe that the woman was not unwilling?
For the judge’s varied rulings appear to suggest that there is rape, which in his words is “criminal behavior [that] does not deserve sympathy” and the full force of law. And then there is this other rape that is somehow not quite rape. What the judge seems to be saying is that in these cases of somehow-not-quite rape, the “pitiable plight of the victims” is a result not of being raped and made pregnant, but of being “nobody’s wife” or an “unwed mother” and so he must use the full force of his high office to set this right.
What Justice Devadass has done remarkably well is set out the prejudices that exist in our society and exemplify how the high judiciary reinforces them. His direction to mediate is no different from the ruling of a Khap Panchayat or an extra-judicial community court that calls for “compromise”. It denies the gravity of the crime, a woman’s right to justice and her autonomy of will. And it converts the heinous crime of rape into a piffling social misdemeanour.
