Legal and moral issues in Tarun Tejpal Case

Synopsis: The Tarun Tejpal acquittal in sexual harassment cases is based on preconceived notions of court and victim shaming. This decision involves legal and moral issues. It will deter women from fighting crimes against them.

Background:

• Tarun Tejpal is a former editor of a news magazine, who was charged with sexually assaulting an employee in 2013.
• The recent judgment of a trial court of Goa acquitted Tarun Tejpal.
• The court also held the investigating officer responsible for the lapses in investigation.
• Also, the Solicitor General of India said that the lower court’s judgment lacked sensitivity regarding crimes against women.

The acquittal has raised some serious question of law, judicial fairness and justice delivery.

What are the major concerns associated with the judgment?

1. Firstly, lack of awareness of criminal laws by the court. There are some changes made in the Evidence Act as per the recommendations of the 172nd report of the Law Commission of India to protect survivor’s right to a fair trial. There are:
   • The defense is not permitted to ask questions to a witness about the general immoral character of the victim and cite it as evidence.
   • The Supreme Court has said that the purpose of cross-examining a survivor of rape is not to humiliate her.
   • Therefore, questions about the past sexual life of the survivor should not have been permitted by the trial court.
2. Secondly, the court’s interpretation is stereotypical and shows the patriarchal mindset of the judiciary.
   • The court has no right to judge anyone’s conduct, as every individual behaves differently under the different circumstances.
   • In Aparna Bhat and Ors. Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2021), SC has specifically said that courts should not express any stereotyped opinion during proceedings or in judicial order about women.
   • Therefore, the judiciary must be careful while creating standards based on preconceived notions about how a victim should behave.
3. Thirdly, only omissions that lead to conflicting versions of the incident made before the police and the court should amount to contradiction.
   • It is not possible to share the same graphic details of the sexual assault.
   • Therefore, if the statement given during the trial is substantially consistent, it should not be rejected by terming them as untrustworthy.
4. Fourthly, the judgment is against the spirit of the law. Because anything such as the survivor’s husband’s name, her email address, etc. should not have been mentioned in the judgment.
   • As per the Indian Penal Code, disclosure of identity of the survivor of rape by anyone is punishable under Section 228-A.
   • Also, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh (2003) held that the name of the victim should not be mentioned in the judgments.

The judgment sets a bad precedent. Though the law should be applied equally to everyone, it should not show lack of sensitivity towards the victim.

Source: The Hindu

Read Also :-Organized crimes in India: an overview