|PHOTO CREDIT HERE|
Way back in 1997, the honourable Indian Supreme Court set up Vishaka Guidelines which you have commented upon in your blog
However, it is important to remind ourselves on this subject of What is sexual harassment?
The honourable Indian Supreme Court has clearly defined it as under:
Sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behavior (whether directly or by implication) as:
a) physical contact and advances;
b) a demand or request for sexual favors;
c) sexually colored remarks;
d) showing pornography;
e) any other unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
In the present case, with regard to acquitting Mohammad Farooqui in the case filed against him for rape by a complainant residing in the United States, your powerful poem moved me to write this email to you. You have touched upon the many times and the multiple ways patriarchy which propagate power of male gender homo-sapiens commonly known as man, in our society and empowered them to use power, physical, mental, psychological, over women. Thus, over ages, society wired in by this insidious crime against women, has got away with the worst because, the system is too deeply entrenched in the minds of men, and women alike, prompting them to bring up their daughters to be victims and sons to be forever ‘right’ even as a perpetrator.
I have read and gone through the entire proceedings and the content of the email. I came across this on FaceBook via my good friend Aditi Ray.
Frankly, the email is misleading sometimes, and has thus been used by the Bench of Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao (please to note, there was no woman Judge on this panel, which is unacceptable when the case is about rape), to acquit the accused director of Piplee Live, Mohammad Farooqui for the 2nd time in January 2018, after he was acquitted in the High Court in 2015. The grounds cited are evident from her email – “She said I love you and kissed him-
Explanation 2,. Sec 375 defined Rape in the following Link
It clearly states:
“375. A man is said to commit "rape" who except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the five following descriptions:
Firstly. Against her will.
Secondly. Without her consent.
Thirdly. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death, or of hurt.
Fourthly. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly. With or without her consent, when she is under fourteen years of age.
Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Exception. Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under thirteen years of age, is not rape.”
Mohammad Farooqui is guilty on all grounds stated above. She did not give consent. In fact, she continued to say no, even as he pushed himself harder on her.
It is yet to establish, whether a thorough in depth inquiry had been made on the content of the email, for the complainant does appear to be under duress and even confused in her own head to have made statements that did not tally throughout. Yet, picking up statements like ‘I love you’ or ‘making drinks for him’, ‘they were friends’ ‘faked orgasm’ when she says earlier that this was the first time, and coming to conclusion that the complainant had given consent is drawing a conclusion too soon. Was the complainant questioned to find out her background, whether she was a victim of child sexual abuse in the past, or why she shot off an email that was confusing in content? And most importantly, why Mohammad Farooqui, guilty on two accounts – first, for cheating on his wife, in their house, right under her nose, and then secondly, committing rape when his wife was out of the house, is still acquitted, leaves much to be desired. The case seems to be hurried to conclusion, favouring the man, in an all male Bench, with no desire to open and scrutinize the case, once again, since it was brought forward after the High Court had passed its judgment in favour of Mohammad Farooqui. If the complainant appealed to the honourable Supreme Court, then was it not the duty of the SC to relook at the case from a fresh angle, without quickly dismissing it as ‘High Court’ has taken the most measured and well-thought out decision, and so the case is closed and The Supreme Court does not wish to open the case again?
If justice be done, then, the case must be reopened and scrutinized.
(a) More inputs on the content of the email is required and deciphering its true meaning, which to me is unclear, since there is a lot written between the lines which has not been taken account of.
(b) Mohammad Farooqui must be bought to task on clear evidence of a double deceit, one against his wife and the other against the complainant by forcing himself against her will even though she constantly said no to it; for un-natural oral sex with the victim and then penetration which makes the entire procedure tantamount to rape.
(c) Consultation with Psychologists and persons working with Child Sexual Abuse victims for a more in-depth meaning of the email. There is a need for far more public discourse and involvement to garner strength over the case which is shoved under the carpet by the honourable Supreme Court saying they do not wish to re-look at the decision made by the Mumbai High Court, as they are quite sure that the conclusion arrived at is after profound deliberations on the said case at hand.
(d) Bench must consist of woman as judge along with gender male judge to make the judgment acceptable.
(e) The Supreme Court must answer why it is flaunting its own judgment and guidelines set up by Vishaka Guidelines and also Explanation 2, Sec 375
A time has come that India needs to SCREAM loudly about atrocities against women and the law-less-ness that prevails in our country over Rape which is rampant across the country and goes unreported at most times and dismissed if brought before Law of the country.
Precisely why, the complainant returned abroad to file an FIR, because, within India, the custodians of law and order, the Public Police Service are reluctant to do so.
Mohammad Farooqui may be free man, but is a perpetrator on the prowl. He is symbolic of the decadence of a society that thrives on lies and male power to dominate and subjugate woman they wish to objectify to meet the carnal desires of their oft deranged minds - their mother, sister, daughter, wife, and girlfriend.