Stand up for your rights

Posts Tagged ‘sexual harassment


Assaultology Rapeonomics & Criminology

Assaultology Rapeonomics & Criminology

A lot of people including myself are utter confused about what is going on in India. A good number of them even quit thinking about this or refusing to talk about it.. Not because of lack of interest but instead its brain twisting, tiring and unable to reach a rational conclusion.

When there is a road accident, obviously, the wrong doer has to compensate the victim; who is at wrong is decided by the justice system and there are companies who give insurance coverage for such unexpected incidents in return for a relatively small monthly premium. Take another scenario where a person incurred damage using any products or services the manufacturer or the service provider, whatever the case may be, is made responsible for paying the compensation. If the State is at fault then State is made liable. If there is a natural disaster like earthquake, where no one is at fault, governments do pay reliefs to the victims. See, the logic and economics are very easy to understand, isn’t it?

Now here is another whole different scenario where one party consciously does a crime and the State compensates the victim using tax money. You might have never heard of a deal like this in any other country! Does that sound very promising, where a third of the nation are unemployed and another third makes hardly enough to stay alive. Not done yet; add gender to the equation. Surprisingly enough, this utopian deal is only for those who have certain organs. I know, I know… Article 15(3) of the Constitution allows the State to discriminate based on gender. I’m also aware of the fact that international politics works on the basis of UN defined ‘atrocities’ and “Responsibility To Protect”, “humanitarian bombing” and all the rest of it, where the “definitions” are made by the groups which are of imperial interests. As per recent report of Intelligence Bureau foreign stakeholders are running Dalit movements and Women atrocities movement within the homeland of India. But, is that the reasoning behind 33% ban on male candidates in state police? Is that the reasoning for 50% ban on men, in certain panchayat/municipal constituencies? Is that the reasoning for total ban on men in certain public transportation? Is that the reasoning for no legal protection for men under Domestic Violence Act, Workplace Harassment Act so on and so on… What I failed to understand is, is there any boundary for this provision? Is it open for abuse? Where to draw the line and say enough is enough? In olden days missionary-imperialist nexus consciously and deliberately gave undue privileges to certain groups of people on the basis of physical differences, brand them into various sects in order to divide, rule and wipe out all national identity and cultural heritage. Are we facing the continuation of their same agenda using tactically improved ways towards their unattained goal?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against financial support/relief/compensation/penalty or any such legal jargons. I’m just trying to understand what are we gaining by total systemic neglect towards half of the population? It has gone to the extend that our State records rarely have the word children, its “Girl Child” now! Is this a step forward or several steps backwards? Would un-opinionated people of India, if there are any left, wake up and say no to this propaganda politics and start asking for reasoning?

The following is the information collected through application under Right To Information Act, so far, from a small jurisdiction in India. Please pay attention to the verbiages highlighted and also the figures in the table given below.

 

DSC_1098DSC_1101DSC_1094DSC_1102

DSC_1106DSC_1096DSC_1107

DSC_1108DSC_1109DSC_1110

imag0207

imag0209

imag0209


injustice

3 member Justice Verma committee wrote 644 pages long report in 18 days [last date to submit deliberations was on Jan 5 and report came out on Jan 23rd, hence 18days; skeptics can add few more days at will] after scrutinising about 80000 deliberations submitted by public!!! Unbelievable huh? Whatever it may be, lets assume that they did it, they did a great job! Let us assume there was no involvement of political hyenas waiting for the right event to push their hidden agenda. Let us not be cynical and go over the report in nondiscriminatory way. Before we peep into this monster report let me remind you the purpose for which this committee was constituted; The report itself says “This Committee was constituted by Govt of India Notification No. SO(3003)E, dated Dec 23, 2012 to look into possible amendments of the Criminal Law to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals committing sexual assault of extreme nature against women. If your brain is not over-sensitised and biased towards women I would solicit your attention to this critical analysis.

First of all let me point out the unprecedented references to United Nations in the report. Justice Verma, please enlighten me with India’s constitutional liability, if any, towards meeting the UN agreements, rules, regulations, goals and standards. Why would a sovereign nation’s law making process ever consider the UN orders and obligations towards them? Are we subservient to Rockefeller’s United Nations? Were the committee got paid by the tax payers or by the globalists?

Interestingly enough, this committee made an astonishing finding that the main villain is “patriarchy” that impairs the dignity of women. During the 30 days period this committee had contacted several government authorities like Delhi police commissioner, chief minister, CBI, National commission for protection of Child Rights, National commission for women, various registrars of high courts across the nation, so on and so forth; but I couldn’t find any questions asking for the role of this main villain in the offenses committed in their respective jurisdictions. Since their responses are not included in the report I don’t know how did the committee reach this conclusion!

If I get the concept of patriarchy right, it is a form of social code-of-ethics and conduct practiced by some religious communities where men takes the role of protector and provider, and women live a life free of cost. A peculiar setup in which, from cradle to grave everything is provided to women. Now Justice Verma committee recommends to shift that role, not to the sovereign women, but to the government. Remember, this is a government which do not even recognise the value of time, the need to have proper sanitation, even the need of enough public latrines and don’t know how to run the ones that exists! First they make enough draconian laws to boot away men from women and then pull the plug; just the way Aadhaar scam worked, first they announced cash transfer to lure the naive and strip the entire public off of their privacy and valuable information, put them all in a database like criminals, then they say cash transfer is possible only after everyone gets bank account!!! I know, I know you are lost; but don’t worry read on, I will try my best to clear the smoke screen.

There are some excellent recommendations in this report which definitely deserve some applause. In general most of the suggested amendments are gender neutral. Recommendation to introduce separate sections for gang rape, repeated offenses and differentiating rape from other non-violent assaults are laudable. Report also lays out a clear procedure of investigating sexual assault cases. Here I’m listing only those that caught my attention and I feel inappropriate.

This committee lays out a long description about female feticide, infanticide, malnutrition, tradition and religious practices, Khap panchayaths, honor killing and all those typical radical feminazi arguments and failed to quote any references or citations to the basis of those claims. None of these are backed by any scientific studies or surveys and to my knowledge these are not gender issues. And then the report says,

In view of the above, we come to the following conclusions and make the following recommendations:

As far as prevention of rape is concerned, (which is obviously not the set goal of this committee) the suggestions set forth by this committee are very silly like installing street lights, provide sanitation, outlaw tinted glasses on vehicles, increase police patrol etc. There is no constructive plans laid out to overhaul the totally dysfunctional justice system.

Committee decriminalise child sex or encourages it?

Committee recommends that the age of consent be reduced to sixteen. It says, this is not to criminalise consensual sex between two individuals even if they are below eighteen years of age. This is because UN convention on child rights 11th December, 1992 said so and Government of India has acceded to that. See, now Rockefeller’s United Nation decides at what age kids in India can have sex! Unless and until we have veto power in UN we should not honor any of the madness they create. Why didn’t the committee recommend to amend marriage acts to reduce the marriageable age? Is it intended to create a community of unmarried teen parents?

When the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death:

The present suggestion to amendment IPC Section 100 is gender neutral and fits quite well in a genuine crime scene. But the suggested clauses like intention of committing rape, unnatural lust, intention of kidnapping or abducting are extremely hard to prove. What is the definition of “unnatural lust”?

Reading it together with the other suggestion of recognising sex without consent inside marriage as rape and the numerous murder cases where men and women are murdered for money or extramarital affairs, this clause, if implemented, will only do more good to such murderers than to genuine rape victims.

166A. Public Servant knowingly disobeying direction of law

This suggestion recommends to punish those officers, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine, who do not record information given to him under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but it only applies to a handful of sections!!! Is it any less crime if they do so in other offenses?

More over considering the magnitude of the abuse of other women centric laws like domestic violence act, 498(A) and even the existing rape clause “sex based on marriage promise”, this clause, if implemented, will open up new greener pastures for unscrupulous women and will over-burden judiciary and tax payers.

326A.Voluntarily causing grievous hurt through use of acid etc:

This is an attempt to classify a crime based on the tools used for the assault which appears to be very naive and not well-thought. More over, it will bring 10+ years of imprisonment for a crime as minor as leaving a scratch, cut or bruise; to me it looks like an attempt to target the Muslim community as it includes genital mutilation; all under the cover of acid attack!!! Point to be noted is that “Irreversible damage” is not a precondition here. As I mentioned above, now it is gender neutral but worth keeping an eye on.

354. Sexual Assault and Punishment for sexual assault

Committee failed to define the offense in an unambiguous way leaving lots of confusion that can result in total destruction of basic human values and will lead to utter chaos as what happened in domestic violence act and IPC498(A) cases.

(a)Intentional touching of another person when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient’s consent;

What is the definition of “sexual nature” here? Is that depending on the perspective of the judge who hear the case or is that based on the perception of the ‘victim’ or something else? Should the consent be written, oral or should no-news be considered as good-news? At what point a gesture of affection become assault, is totally missed out in this recommendation.

Section 375: Rape

Here, taking out the most absurd clause “sex under the false promise of marriage” is extremely laudable. Hi-fives to Justice Verma. If passed into law, this will definitely reduce heck load of work off the shoulders of police and judiciary for sure. Even though the language of definitions are generally gender neutral and acceptable the following explanation is bit icky.

Explanation III: Consent will not be presumed in the event of an existing marital relationship between the complainant and the accused.

Explanation IV. – Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act.

Provided that, a person who does not offer actual physical resistance to the act of penetration is not by reason only of that fact, to be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.

It is icky not because the definition is unclear or wrong, but because it undermines the legitimacy of a relationship which is considered to be sacred by many. If a couple cannot find agreement in the act of exercising fundamental bondage, they shouldn’t be living together in the first place; neither that relationship is eligible to be called as marriage. In the case of Sexual harassment at workplace bill, the main argument for not making it gender neutral is by challenging the number of incidents of such harassment happened to men. In this particular case of marital rape, it would be easy to collect medical reports if any such violent incident ever occurred, but none got cited here. This provision only helps to simply deny consent as an afterthought and so doesn’t attract any merits. I know this is an imported piece of legislation from morally underdeveloped western countries. Until we lay out a proper investigation procedure and legislating prenuptial agreements, this piece of recommendation has to be totally discarded. No spouse should bet 7+years of their life (possibly their very life itself, if IPC100 recommendation becomes law) to run a family. What is the need to make the institution of family so ugly, dangerous and a hostile environment? If the goal is to reduce population by discouraging marriages, let me tell the committee with all due respect, it’s not to meet this purpose that we tax payers paid you.

CrPC Amendments

Amendment to the proviso to section 160. Lifting the age limit of boys from 16 to 18 is greatly appreciated. The investigating officer will have to record his statement at his own residence.

Insertion of Section 198B:

Wife can accuse husband for rape and court has to take cognizance but if husband does the same courts cannot! Husband has to go the police file a complaint, and convince the police and at the mercy of the officer he may or may not get justice. Is this the constitutionally guaranteed equality before law as per Justice Verma? Embarrassing!!!

AMENDMENTS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

Amendment to Section 114A

114A. (1) In a prosecution for rape under sub-section (2) of section 376 or for gang rape under Section 376C of the Indian Penal Code, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the other person alleged to have been raped and such other person states in his/her evidence before the court that she or he did not consent, the court shall presume that she or he did not consent.

This is the most notorious and shameful suggestion in the whole report. Conviction based on Presumptions and assumptions are a total disgrace to any modern justice system. This contradicts with the basic principles like “treating innocent until proven guilty”,  proving an offense “beyond reasonable doubt” and also takes away the inherent right of judiciary to apply its mind!!! If implemented, it will enable any women to file rape suite after any type of intercourse; whether paid or unpaid. It opens up the pandora box for the blackmailers and retaliators totally discarding natural justice!. Shame on you Mr. Verma!

Amendment to Section 146

it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross- examination of the victim as to his or her general moral character, or as to his or her previous sexual experience with any person.

Hard coding moral rules into an Act is not a progressive step. I am not a proponent to put restrictions on what to ask or what not to ask. Lawyers should ask this this and this, don’t ask this and that, court should presume this this and this, assume this or that; what is going on here? Is this recommendation coming from a former Chief Justice? Absurd! It may, if otherwise earth is going to stop oscillating, fit in the Bar Council Rules but definitely not in any Act or code.

AMENDMENT TO THE ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWERS) ACT, 1958

This one has already gained its fair share of criticism. See what Times of India reported.

I have almost 1,000 personnel under me, and they are spread across some five kilometres. They could go on leave, or temporary duty. How am I to ensure their sexual conduct throughout the year, 24 hours a day?” asks a Commanding Officer of and army unit.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Verma-commission-report-draws-armed-forces-fire/articleshow/18174402.cms

Some obvious questions.

I hope now you got an insight about the rotten and stinky parts of this report. Do you think it is for the good of the society to have this kind of irrational laws? Do you think it is for the benefit of women in the long run or even in the short run? Do you think these are human errors? Do you think this is a step forward, as a society? Do you think it will improve our civilisation? If your answer to any one of those question is ‘No’ what would you think is the reason for this “mistake”? What are the chances that this report is highly influenced and politically inflated? What is the reason to allocate several pages bragging about constitution, gender equality and what not, but at the same time lay out a SEPARATE bill of rights for one gender? Isn’t this an attempt by a political party to play the good samaritan role; the savior of women; the champion of women empowerment and the chances of that party is so weak and feeble in the upcoming election? Do you have at least 10% hope in implementing 1% of this report? Do you think it is a political gimmick wasting tax-payer’s money? Do you think there is external influence in destabilising our social fabric? What could be the reason to include baseless unscientific unproven feminazi delusions in this report? Why is UN so important for internal law making of a sovereign nation?

New World Order operative’s plan to destroy the foundation of our nation is working out pretty well.

Morons in India are applauding it as women empowerment.

Who is the single largest sponsor of feminism? Rockefeller Foundation…

Where is UN head office sitting? On Rockefeller’s property (though donated)…

Who is running ICICI bank? The Rockefellers…

Who is running Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)? The Rockefellers…

Who wants to implant RFID chip on every human being on earth? The Rockefellers…

What is the first step towards RFID? Aadhaar/UID

Who is Rothchild’s puppet? The Rockefellers…

Who wants to introduce Aadhaar/UID in India… THE BANKS…..

Who is the the Father of RBI? Lord Rothchilds….

Who is the financial advisory of Govt of India? The Rothchilds

Read “Is boy preference a brain product of CFR” and learn more.

उत्तिष्टता जाग्रता प्राप्यवरण निभोदता

.


JSVerma

Honorable Justice Verma Committee

This is with reference to the invitation for suggestions on amendments to Criminal Laws relating to Safety and Security of Women. I do believe that laws can protect people but I also strongly believe that laws can only protect people from the aggression of that particular offender. So, if the idea is to prevent an incident like Delhi gang rape from happening ever again in the main land of India, IMHO, we need to take a three step approach (not quick-fix workarounds) as listed below; sorted based on priority.

  1. Strengthen self defense laws so as to make it people-friendly as opposed to governance-friendly.
  2. Overhaul the criminal justice system to deliver quality judgments on a time bound manner.
  3. Improve and standardize law enforcement procedures.

Strengthen self defense laws

It is impractical and impossible to give police protection to every single women in this country. Historically, Indian police and law enforcement authorities have been posing the major threat to women. And it is a known fact that nearly 99% of them evade the legal process and go scott free. Any steps towards that path will be doing more harm than even an ounce of good. This is where Gandhiji’s words makes more sense than anything else; “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look back upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” [Autobiography page 446].

All citizens have the natural god given right to self-defense, which is recognised by the Indian Constitution as well as the Indian Penal Code, however this right is meaningless without the right to have the tools of self-defense! Honorable bench of Supreme Court (D.K. Jain, H.L. Dattu) ruled in Sikandar Singh & Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2010

25.It is well settled that the burden of establishing the plea of self defence is on the accused but it is not as onerous as the one that lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea of self defence to the hilt and may discharge the onus by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. In Vidhya Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh16, this Court had observed that right of self defense should not be construed narrowly because it is a very valuable right and has a social purpose. (Also see: Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration17; The State of Gujarat Vs. Bai Fatima & Anr.18 and Salim Zia Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh19.)

The only hindrance to citizen’s right to self defense is now the Government of India. I humbly request the honorable commission to seriously consider urging the government to amend Indian Arms Act 1959 and Arms Policies/Rules in a way that self-defense tools can be made available to the law abiding citizens as easy and cheap as knives and axes. Had any one of those couple who boarded the bus in Delhi carry a fire arm this heinous crime would have never occurred. Just by showing the gun or firing a warning shot could have prevented it, or in worst case scenario they could have injured the offenders if not take their life.

Showing Sandy Hook school shooting for denying this right doesn’t attract any merits because 99% of mass shooting spree in America happened in gun-free zones. (The offenders know that there will be zero resistance!) In Britain as well, when their government imposed a gun ban, crime rate went up 40%. [Handgun crime ‘up’ despite ban – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm]

Overhaul the criminal justice system

1) Stop Abuse of The Legal Process. Consider false accusations equally heinous as the allegation itself. (conviction rate of criminal cases are under 30%. 70+% are false or fabricated or have no locus standi)

2) Take perjury as a serious offense and punish the wrong doers so as to reduce the abuse of law and free up the resources.

3) Stop Media Trial that influence and create hindrances in legal process.

4) Multiply the number of courts/benches 100 times (if needed) to deliver time bound verdicts. I believe, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

5) Remove hard coded “PRESUMPTIONS” from the statutes and let Judiciary apply its mind. Judging based on presumptions is tantamount to lawlessness!

6) Remove categorical exemptions in the process based on caste, creed and gender.

7) Implement complete judicial reforms including but not limited to make erring judges accountable.

a) Amend criminal procedure code to include trial by jury.

b) Let all courts have division benches rather than trial by single judge, to reduce human errors in making rational decisions. (If supreme court has more than 50000+ pending cases that is a clear indication that our lower courts are delivering crap)

c) Include judiciary in Public Service Commission to SELECT judges based on quality, rather than ELECT/NOMINATE them. If Judiciary is to be kept away from legislative system, then introduce Judicial Service Commission so as to ensure the quality of judges.

d) Implement a perceptual monitoring system similar to PMP in which managers have to undergo several assignments and meet certain criteria to maintain the ‘status’. Those who cannot maintain the ‘status’ should be disqualified to judge other people’s life. This will ensure maintain and improve the quality of judgments.

Improve and standardize law enforcement procedures.

It is time to quarantine the age old unscientific thuggish colonial style of investigation. It is worth imitating the most modern investigation procedures followed by developed countries like sexual assault forensic evidence (SAFE) kit, Sexual offense evidence collection (SOEC) kit or Physical Evidence Recovery Kit (PERK) kit. This way our law enforcement officers know how to deal with a sexual assault case and what all data/evidences that they need to collect in order to ensure a higher rate of conviction.Such a kit consists of small boxes, microscope slides and plastic bags for collecting and storing evidence such as clothing fibers, hairs, saliva, semen or body fluid, which may help identify the assailant and provide evidence supporting prosecution in a criminal trial.

Although a kit’s contents may vary, it may include:

  • Instructions
  • Bags and sheets for evidence collection
  • Swabs for collecting fluids from the lips, cheeks, thighs, vagina, anus, and buttocks
  • Blood collection devices
  • Comb used to collect hair and fiber from the victim’s body
  • Clear glass slides
  • Envelopes for preserving the victim’s clothes, head hair, pubic hair, and blood samples
  • Nail pick for scraping debris from beneath the nails
  • White sheets to catch physical evidence stripped from the body
  • Documentation forms
  • Labels

Most importantly there should be ample amount of forensic labs which should ensure no more than a weeks delay in delivering the results/reports. For fully implementing all the suggestions made above we can raise the funds by abandoning the invasive, tyrannical and illegal UID/Aadhaar project and divert the funds for building the most needed long overdue criminal justice infrastructure in less than 2 years time.

.


1111

In less than a month after Justice Katju mentioned that 90% of Indians are idiots we have witnessed big demonstrations and violence in the name of “seeking” justice. I don’t think Katju was commenting about the IQ level of the people; he was pointing to the fact that how easy it is to trick the people using mass media. I do believe that majority of the masses do not have the time or interest in fact checking. They possess a strong belief that whatever media provides is ‘authentic’ truth. Apparently there is no reason to disagree that with a few exceptions. But the problem lies in ignoring the fact that, what media provides is only a portion of the truth. This is not intended to blame the media or discredit their work because like any other industry they are also working for profit. Most of them follow at least 60-40 ratio where 60% of the time/space is allocated for advertisements and 40% for news. So what we get is the “limited” amount of facts where that “limited” content will be the most sensationalised part of the facts.

Let us analyse the most recent incident. Well utilized RAPE in the recent history attempted to shed a great deal of light about that. What happened here is to cherry pick a real (read on and you will get why I said ‘real’) incident of rape and sensationalise it to the maximum possible extent so as to condition the thoughts of the masses to link to this incident when ever they hear about the word “RAPE”. It didn’t stop there; today one of the prominent malayalam news daily reported with the title “Increasing assaults; Only one fourth end up in conviction”. They also claim that India stands 3rd in the number of rapes with no mention about where that statistics come from. Here is what I found from UN International Statistics on Crime and Justice

regional

countryWise

Since people (most probably journalists too) do not spend time on fact checking they are not aware about the legal definition of rape neither they are aware of the proposed amendments in discussion. Those who are interested may read “Don’t make law against Rape – It’s our right”, says women! In Naom Chomsky’s words, this is Manufacturing Consent.

Well parented law abiding good citizens, having high level of values may question that why would anyone oppose a good intended amendment. Here is where the importance of fact checking matters the most. The report talks about 2,56,329 cases towards female assaults quoting National Crime Records Bureau statistics. Did they cheat you with the numbers… probably not.. Apparently, the numbers are slightly bigger as of 2011 reports

Category

Cases Reported


KIDNAPPING & ABDUCTION OF WOMEN & GIRLS

35565


MOLESTATION

42968


SEXUAL HARASSMENT

8570


CRUELTY BY HUSBAND AND RELATIVES

99135


IMPORTATION OF GIRLS

80


TOTAL CRIME AGAINST WOMEN (IPC+SLL)

228650


RAPE

24206


DOWRY DEATHS

8618

Total

261474

That much shows the numbers and categories. I haven’t made my point yet and that is to expose the truth that everybody knows. Yes, I mean it; everybody knows why the conviction rate is very less. Here is how…

Kidnapping and abduction of women and girls – Most of the cases that falls under this category are filed by relatives of women/girls who have made their own conscious decision to live with someone whom they chose as life partners. When relatives do not like that relationship or when they are unable to locate the missing woman/girl, they will file the case. Few days later after the marriage registration is done the couple show up but the case remains at the same state waiting for the legal process to complete.

A great deal of abduction cases are filed against fathers if the relationship is entangled in a divorce battle. This is done as way to take personal revenge or to ensure a bigger ‘settlement’ amount for the mother.

Molestation – It will be hard to finda kidnapping/abduction of women/girls FIR where there is no molestation charge in it. Does that warrant any explanation why someone kidnap or abduct a girl/woman? Again this is a divorce weapon widely used against fathers. I’ve first hand information from an NRI who is facing this charge for “molesting” his 2 year old daughter as part of his divorce battle!!!

Sexual Harassment – This is simply a made up category that comes under the penal provision “Outraging the modesty of a woman”. It is usually unable to prove unless there are multiple witnesses. But in those cases that i’ve reliable source of information, such a case is reported only when there are witnesses; in other words, when a normal human intimate relationship is witnessed by others, it becomes a sexual harassment case against the male partner in order to save the “modesty of a woman”.

Cruelty by husband and relatives – Up until the middle of the first decade of this century when men started organizing themselves against the bogus complaints and legal harassment this section was considered to be a widely accepted form of “cruelty”. Thanks to thousands of TV serials, movies and several hundred kilometers worth media columns of articles. The relentless efforts of men’s group and the studies they conducted exposed the startling truth that only 1.9% of cases in this category end up in conviction. More information is available in the book “Equality for Men – Myth or Reality” freely downloadable from www.internationalmensday.in

Rape – This is the most notorious crime that can ever happen to a woman. That is a general opinion until you go and do a study on the legal definition of rape. Recently Pune police reported that 74% of the cases that they deal with are consensual sex! Even though this comes from a crooked political party I was not surprised about what this leader said, 90 percent rape cases in Haryana are consensual sex, says Congress leader.

Dowry Death – Here i’m not commenting my thoughts but just copying what Delhi High Court chief justice Shiv Narayan Dingra mentioned while acquitting a mother in law from dowry death charges in Rani Vs The State of NCT of Delhi

Charges seemed to have been framed in a mechanical manner. No effort is seem to have been made by the Trial Judge either at the time of framing charge or later on as to what offence was made out.

  1. Every suicide after marriage cannot be presumed to be a suicide due to dowry demand. The tendency of the Court should not be that since a young bride has died after marriage, now somebody must be held culprit and the noose must be made to fit some neck.

I have intentionally left out one category just because of the low number of cases and the likely hood of bogus cases are nil or minimal. If you have read the links mentioned above and double checked with other available sources of information you will see a big disconnect between what you see in corporate media and the reality. The figures shown and the arguments made by the malayalam daily were not untrue but when we know more about the factual truth it doesn’t add up. May be because the journalists are not subject matter experts or they are not given enough time to do proper analysis or they are not given enough space to cover the whole story, but either way readers/viewers are screwed. Still some questions remain unanswered

If number of reported cases are the indication of rise in crime as opposed to convictions, why do we need to spend crores of rupees in running courts and law enforcements? We could directly file the complaint in jail and they can put the accused in jail with no due process of law. So, are the crime rate increasing or the rate of false and bogus complaints increasing? How are we going to ensure justice for falsely accused? Don’t they deserve the right to live with dignity just because a tiny minority of people commit violent crimes?

.


Union Health Ministry has decided to make the per vaginal (PV) test optional for rape victims in order to save their right to privacy. In other words the “victim” can refuse PV test even if the interrogation officers insist so. Being a pro-rights activist I’m glad that India government is recognizing and respecting the rights of its citizens. But what I don’t understand is how is Government of India going to protect the fundamental right, to live with dignity, of more than half of the population? I mean, how are men going to protect themselves from false rape accusations?

Indian patriarchal laws even recognize consensual sex by false promise of marriage as rape. The new sexual assault bill under the consideration of parliament is going to bring all kind of sexual offenses under one umbrella and treat it as rape!

Not so long ago, Pune police reported that more than 70% of reported rape cases are consensual sex.  Guys and girls fall in love and if at a later point when girl gets pregnant and her family don’t agree with the relationship, in order to save the face she reports rape. In some cases women report rape in order to blackmail successful guys for marriage. Some times this blackmailing is to wreck vengeance or for extortion. These are all well known facts and numerous men are languishing in jails for no fault of theirs and their loved ones undergoing endless trauma.

When a man attacks a woman, that act is definitely going to leave his skin cells on the victim’s body. Forensic evidences make the prosecution stronger and bring maximum punishment to the offender. Above all, it gives the accused a fair chance to prove his innocence. Not to mention that Indian patriarchal laws do not recognize a woman as sex offender! Invariably, this so called progressive move puts men in the most vulnerable situation where the chances of getting his dignity and social status smeared in dirt become ten fold high.

Men in general are not aware of the possible trauma that they, along with their family and loved ones, may face sooner or sometime in their life time. The most abused law that India has ever witnessed, the infamous IPC 498a, when enacted in 1983 was beyond the wildest imagination of law makers or common people that the abuse would go to this extent. When a shop owner reports theft and claim insurance the first thing that cops do is to make sure whether or not the theft is real. Application of common sense seems to be considered as an offense by Indian law makers when it comes to women centric laws.

Interestingly, most men even feel it “insensitive” to point out the necessity of forensic examination. I don’t know if it is obsession towards certain organs or starvation of physical needs that made them feel so. I’m asking those people who feel that talking against relaxing the rape probe is an insensitive act, will you be ready to feel sensitive and accept the jail sentence when a woman falsely accuse you of rape?


Sub: – Strongest protest against

“Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill 2010” for DENYING MEN its protection

This memorandum is in response to the invitation for suggestions for the bill titled “Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill 2010”.

This bill points out that Sexual Harassment results in violation of the fundamental rights of equality under articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and right to life and to live with dignity under article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice any profession which includes a right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment. However it only counts the violation of fundamental rights of women and categorically ignored the violation of fundamental rights of men who constitute the other half of the population, at the sole discretion of Women and Child Ministry under the pressure of a miniscule number of feminist and sexist people. When the world over, “Sexual Harassment at Workplace” is considered as a gender neutral offence, India, on the contrary, is setting a horrendously bad and absolutely backward attitude of DENYING legal protection for the current and future generations of men for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Sexual Harassment at Workplace is a very serious issue and we fail to understand why the present draft of the bill, completely misses out the important aspect that Sexual Harassment of Men results in same amount of violation of all those rights mentioned above. We also humbly lodge our strongest protest against changing the very name of the draft bill itself, from the original gender neutral “Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill” to the present biased one, without any justification, reasoning or logic.

Apparently, the present draft of the bill openly violates Article 15 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination on grounds of gender. Article 15(3) of the Constitution does allow the government to make special provisions for women, but the same article cannot be used to overlook the fact that women too can be perpetrators of the crime and absolve women from getting prosecuted for committing the same offence. In order words Article 15(3) does not allow women to be exempted for punishment for committing the same act which, when a man does, is a crime. Moreover, our Constitution nowhere mentions that special provisions for women will be achieved at the cost of deliberate discrimination against men on the grounds of gender, which is the essence of the Main Article 15 of the Constitution.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “all are equal before the law, and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution declares that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. Unfortunately the present draft of the bill violates both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

We would also request the committee to avoid duplication of laws, while drafting bills. Clause 19 (h) of the bill clearly states, that in case the perpetrator is not an employee, the employer shall initiate action under Indian Penal Code (IPC), without even waiting for the enquiry, for the same offense of sexual harassment. Or in other words, it is amply clear that remedies under the present provisions of IPC do very well exist, for the same offense of sexual harassment and can be easily applied when the perpetrator is not an employee. So why are we not applying the very same laws on the employee itself, without going for a new law, which is nothing but a duplication of Law, as per the very draft of the bill itself and clog the judicial dockets, with multiple cases. This clause has been explained in more detail later.

Today India is more famous for its astronomical scams than anything else. The outgoing chief of the Central Vigilance Commission openly stated that about 30% of Indians are utterly corrupt and about 50% are on the borderline corrupt and can be corrupted if presented with a situation. Hence given that over 80% of the country is corrupt, what is the justification behind creating laws which can be easily used as weapon for extortion? From the above data it can be concluded with reasonable accuracy that given that half the country is composed of women, over 40% of the Indian women are also corrupt. In this context we would like to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Members, that our President, Her Excellency Mrs. Pratibha Patil, has repeatedly warned on the massive misuse of gender biased laws live IPC 498a, and urged everyone to exercise extreme caution while drafting such bills. The present bill, if passed in the present format, containing numerous loopholes and open to rampant misuse, would be a serious vote bank issue in the coming elections.

Let us now go through the various shortcomings of the present draft of the bill, and which requires the following amendments

A. Gender Neutrality

Comments

1) Women and Child Ministry has no right to deny MEN their rights.

2) All employers are committed to maintaining a workplace where each employee’s privacy and personal dignity are respected and protected from offensive / threatening behavior, irrespective of gender.

3) The Sexual Harassment at workplace policies prevalent in most of the nations today are gender neutral. According to a report on Sexual harassment at workplace by United Nations Economic Commission of Europe – Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, The Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom have policies for Sexual Harassment, that are gender neutral. Even neighboring Pakistan has Gender Neutral Sexual Harassment policies.

4) Surveys recently conducted by the Economic times, and Synovate across 6 Indian cities exposed the fact that men face more sexual harassment than women and must also be given protection.

5) Eminent social workers like Madhu Kishwar supported the fact that the Sexual harassment at Workplace Bill in its present from needs immediate amendment.

6) The feminist argument saying “sexual harassments of men are miniscule” is not based on any research, survey or study. Even if this argument is taken into face value, it does not stand a ground for denying protection for men; if the number of harassment is low the number of cases will also be low.

As per the Census of India 2001 data, men constitute 68.37% of the total workforce whereas women were 31.63%. Therefore, any effort to prevent or eliminate sexual harassment at workplace should be applicable to employees, irrespective of gender, both in terms of responsibility and liability.

Suggestion # 1

The Act should be made applicable to all employees, irrespective of their gender. The word woman should be replaced by the word employee in all appropriate places in the draft bill so as to render the proposed draft gender neutral.

B. Committees

B-I Tenure of Committees

Comments

The committees should not be permanent entities. This would help avoid any possibility of malpractice. Committees should be formed only when a complaint is received and appropriate action is warranted on it. They should be disbanded after appropriate action has been taken.

Suggestion # 2

No committee be formed unless to hear a specific complaint.

B-II Remuneration for Committee members

Comments

Section 7(2) and Section 7(4) of the draft bill propose tenure and remuneration for the Committee members. It is strongly recommended that no remuneration or allowances should be made payable to any of the Committee members as it would encourage frivolous and malicious cases to justify such payments.

Suggestion # 3

No remuneration, monetary or otherwise be provided to the committee members or chairperson.

B. 3 Constitution of committees

B.3-I Appointment of Committee Chairperson and Internal Committee members

Section 7(1)(a) of the draft bill states :- “a Chairperson to be nominated from amongst the eminent women in the field of social work and committed to the cause of women

Comments

The above proposed section is based on an unjustified, untenable premise that only women are capable of arbitrating complaints of sexual harassment.

Both section 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(c) use the phrase ‘committed to the cause of women’. Even the Supreme Court, Vishakha Judgement does not use the phrase “committed to the cause of women”. This phrase in fact finds mention in several places in the draft bill and its connotation only suggests an inherent bias and prejudice against men. The committee members instead should be individuals with ‘high integrity and a judicious approach’ and most importantly unbiased.

Suggestion # 4

Instead of being gender biased and committed to the “cause of women”, the appointment of the Committee Chairperson and members should be on the basis of their integrity and their judicious approach. All appointments should be transparent.

B.3-II NGO Committee member

In section 7(1)(c), the bill states :- “at least one shall be a woman, to be nominated from amongst such non-governmental organisations or associations committed to the cause of women, which may be prescribed”

In section 7(1)(d), the bill states :- Provided that at least one-half of the total Members so nominated shall be women

Comments:

Members external to the organization should not be allowed to arbitrate on the issues that are internal to the organization. Members of women’s groups or non-governmental organizations dealing with issues of violence against women may harbour an inherent bias against men and a fair and equitable probe may not be made available to male victims of sexual harassment. They may also encourage women who are not necessarily harassed, but have other grievances with the organization, to file sexual harassment complaints.

Another stipulation in this section requires that at least fifty per cent of the members so nominated shall be women.

Suggestion # 5 & 6

No members, external to the employer organization should be allowed in the committee.

Any stipulation with respect to number of women in the Committee is unnecessary and makes a prejudiced assumption that only women are capable of arbitrating complaints. This, as well as the “commitment to the cause of women” is addressed by

Suggestion #4.

Comments

In various sections the committee has been granted various powers to make appropriate recommendations to the employer or District Officer.

i. From the proposed draft bill it is not clear if the employer is bound by the recommendations of the committee.

ii. The process of appeals too is not clearly specified.


iii.
Would the recommendation of committee be open to challenge in a court of law?


iv.
Does the respondent have a right to utilize help of legal counsel during the proceedings on the enquiry?


v.
The power of the committee and the process of the enquiry of the complaint should be well defined.

Again Clause 11(2) of the bill states that “the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and

(c) any other matter which may be prescribed.

We strongly object to the subclause (c) “any other matter which may be prescribed” as such an important bill can’t give huge powers to the committee and at the same time, make clauses ambiguous and open ended.

Suggestion # 7

The powers of the committee and the appeals process should be specified unambiguously. Inadequacies mentioned in (i) to (v) above need to be addressed explicitly. Clause 11(2)c, needs to be deleted, being not specific, ambiguous, and open to various interpretations.

C. Complaints

C-I Conciliation

In section 10 (1), the draft bill states – “The Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee, may, before initiating inquiry under section 11 and at the request of the aggrieved woman take steps to settle the matter between her and the respondent through conciliation“.

Comments

A complaint of sexual harassment is a serious complaint, and under no circumstances should the conciliation include any monetary settlements. It is an outrage to the sensibilities of all self respecting men and women that money can be considered as adequate redressal for their loss of dignity. Moreover, any kind of monetary incentive would only render the proposed statute open for abuse. Various media articles have specially pointed out these serious lacunae of this bill. In fact, this is in clear violation of the Supreme Court, Vishakha Judgement, which does not speak of awarding monetary compensation to a victim of Sexual Harassment, from the respondent, as Apex Court knew very well, that then, the bill, would be open to rampant misuse.

Suggestion # 8

Monetary compensation should not be a part of conciliation proceedings. This would to a large extent help avoid potential for misuse.

C-II Time limit on Filing Complaints

Comments

A time limit within which the complaint needs to be filed from the time of alleged incident is of crucial significance in settling sexual harassment disputes. Justice should be meted out before any evidence is damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or fades away from memory. In fact the complaint should be lodged by the complainant instantaneously and spontaneously without any loss of time. Any delay on this score must be explained to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. In addition, the filing of the complaint needs to be time bound. For example, it would be ridiculous to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment after years of the alleged incident. It is also important to remember that the guilty person should be visited with appropriate reformist action at the earliest, which can be made possible only when the complaint is filed instantaneously.

Suggestion # 9

The complaint should be filed immediately on the occurrence of the alleged incident. Any complaint not filed within a stipulated time period (4 weeks) should be closely scrutinized for veracity before admission and the delay should be explained in writing by the complainant, to the satisfaction of the committee.

C.3 Compensation

C.3-I Silence on action to be taken

The bill in clause 13(3)(i) states that “ to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed;

C.3-II Financial Responsibility

In section 13(3)(ii), the draft bill directs – “to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum of compensation to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of section 15:”

Comments

First of all the bill is totally silent on what action is to be taken on the respondent, in absence of service rules and states “as may be prescribed”. Or in other words, the draft bill is unfortunately silent on the main issue.

Secondly, loss of salary or wages would be a huge encumbrance on the family of the respondent, potentially including children, who would face economic hardships and could even jeopardize their future. The respondent must not be individually responsible when he/she is in employment of the organization. Rather, it is the responsibility of the organization to police its own employees and ensure they follow the service rules. If they don’t, the employer is responsible to pay the compensation to the victim. The employer can deal with the service aspects of the perpetrator separately in the best interest of their organization. In the western nations, the financial burden of a sexual harassment suit lies with the employer as it is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe working environment to the employees.

Suggestion # 10

As prevalent in the western world, the Employer should bear the financial burden of the compensation ordered to the aggrieved person. The bill should clearly specify the action to be taken on the respondent in absence of service rules, as that it supposed to be the main purpose of this bill.

C.3-III Determination of Compensation

Comments

All incentives for filing frivolous and malicious complaints should be eliminated. No committee should be empowered to issue any monetary compensation at any stage of the complaint. All avenues for extortion and blackmail should be shut down by divesting the committee of all power to order any monetary incentive to the complainant.

The committee should be given authority only to investigate and submit a report. The question of compensation must be decided by a legal authority whose decisions should be available for review by higher judiciary.

Suggestion # 11

The committee should be divested of all powers to order any monetary compensation at any stage of the proceedings.

C.4 False and Malicious complaint

In section 14(1), the bill states – “

Provided further that the malicious intent or falsehood on part of the complainant shall be established after an inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed, before any action is recommended”

Comments

When the allegations of sexual harassment cannot be proved against the respondent, then it should recommend action against the complainant immediately, within a maximum specified time limit of 30 days. The bill also states that “in accordance with the procedure prescribed”. We are all aware that most of the cases filed under this bill, would be false. And as no procedure is being spelt out, none would be punished for lodging false cases for ulterior motives. We strongly suggest the deletion of the above phrase to minimise its rampant misuse.

We would also like to humbly remind the Hon’ble Committee Members that on 7th August, 2009, some Women NGOs lobbied for deletion of the Misuse Clause from the draft bill. All the Women MPs, unanimously agreed that a Misuse Clause is very much needed to prevent misuse of this loosely worded bill. Unfortunately, after the above consensus was reached, with the Women MPs, the very misuse clause has been drastically changed to make the bill, ironically, even more prone to misuse.

Section 14(1), of the bill states that if a complaint is found to be false, the committee “may recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be, to take action against the woman or the person who has made the complaint”.

The phrase ‘may recommend’ should be changed to “shall recommend” to ensure justice for a respondent falsely accused of sexual harassment.

Suggestion # 12

Mandatory action must be taken against the complainant when the complaint is found to be frivolous or malicious, within a maximum of 30 days.

Suggestion #13

Falsely accused person should have the right to pursue justice in a court of law, and claim appropriate redressal as remedy for the mental trauma, pain, suffering, emotional distress and social censure caused to the falsely accused person.

D. Duties of Employer

Clause 19 (g) states that “provide assistance to the woman if she so chooses to file a complaint in relation to the offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force;

Comments on Section 19 (g)

The bill is totally silent on quality of assistance to be provided by the Employer.

Suggestion # 14

The quality of assistance to be provided by the Employer must be spelt out clearly and unambiguously in the bill.

E. Duplication of Law

Clause 19(h) states that the Employer shall “initiate action, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force, against the perpetrator after the conclusion of the inquiry, or without waiting for the inquiry, where the perpetrator is not an employee in the workplace at which the incident of sexual harassment took place.

Comments:

This clause makes it amply clear, that in case the perpetrator is not an employee, the employer shall initiate action under IPC, without even waiting for the enquiry, for the same offense of sexual harassment.  In other words, remedies under the present provisions of IPC do very well exist, for the same offense of sexual harassment and can be easily applied when the perpetrator is not an employee. So why are we not applying the very same laws on the employee itself, without going for a new law, which is nothing but a duplication of Law, as per the very draft of the bill itself and clog our courts, with duplicate cases.

We admit that there are three shortcomings with the present IPC laws vis-a-vis this draft bill.

Firstly, under the present IPC laws, the women do not get any monetary compensation for sexual harassment and the perpetrator also gets punished, if found guilty. Moreover, no Women NGO member gets paid for being recruited as committee members under the present IPC laws. In the present bill however, there is no punishment for the perpetrator, whereas the victim gets monetary compensation, for alleged Sexual Harassment, with an elaborate, non required, recruitments of committee members from various women NGOs, whose qualification would be “committed to the cause of women”, and thus get paid by the Government, from Tax Payers hard earned money.

Secondly in the Present IPC laws, the woman needs evidence in the court, to prove her case. In the present bill, however, there is no such requirement as the process of enquiry of the complaint has not been defined. Very special measure like blanket ban of use of RTI on the enquiry proceeding have also been proposed in this bill, making it wide open for rampant misuse under the cover.

Thirdly, the present IPC laws are again criminal in nature with the government Public Prosecutors, fighting for the women, with no scope of income generation for the women activist lawyers. In the present bill, the alleged victim would however require lawyers including women activists’ lawyers to fight her case and get monetary compensation for alleged sexual harassments. Thus the present bill would generate huge business and income for lawyers including women activists and simultaneously clog the judicial dockets with non required, multiple cases, as per the very draft of the bill itself. Such a scope of business and income generation for women activist lawyers is unfortunately absent under the present IPC laws.

Suggestion # 15

Avoid duplication of law as the very bill states that remedies under present IPC are very much available for the same offense of sexual harassment and can also be easily applied when the perpetrator is not an employee. So why not apply the very same IPC laws on the employee itself and avoid duplication of laws. The government can alternatively, employ such, women NGO members, qualified as “committed to the cause of women” in various other upcoming social schemes.

G. Right to the Enquiry Report

Section 16 prohibits the publication or making known, the contents of complaint and enquiry proceedings. Interestingly the bill suggests suppression of information only when the case is False. Information on true cases can however be retrieved through RTI Act. In a report published by the Transparency International, it was found that India’s corruption index showed a marked decline and the single-most reason for the drop in corruption in government was attributed to the Right to Information Act. The RTI Act which has been hailed as a beacon of democracy in India many a times by the Honourable Prime Minister and Leader of the UPA Mrs. Sonia Gandhi cannot be allowed to be trampled in such a manner by some people having vested interest. Even the DoPT has given serious objections in writing against this Clause 16, which brutally tramples the RTI Act.

The Sexual Harassment at Workplace is an outcome of the guidelines framed by Honb’le Supreme Court of India in Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011). The guidelines clearly say that “These guidelines will not prejudice any rights available under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993”. The above clause is thus a clear contempt of the Apex Court guidelines and a blatant abuse of Human Rights.

Comments

When, either the complainant or the respondent wishes to approach any court of law for justice, they should have a right to the details and proceedings of the enquiry in the enquiry report to provide context to the judiciary.

Suggestion # 16

Section 16 should be deleted. In the event the complainant or the respondent wishes to pursue the matter in judiciary, the enquiry report should be provided to concerned party.

Summary of the above recommendations:

1.      The Act should be made applicable to all employees, irrespective of gender. The word woman should be replaced by the word employee in all appropriate places in the draft bill so as to render the proposed draft gender neutral.

2.      No committee be formed unless to hear a specific complaint.

3.      No remuneration, monetary or otherwise should be provided to the committee members or chairperson.

4.      Instead of being gender biased and committed to the “cause of women”, the appointment of the Committee Chairperson and members should be on the basis of their integrity and their judicious approach. All appointments should be transparent.

5.      No members, external to the employer organization should be allowed in the committee.

6.      Any stipulation w.r.t. number of women in the Committee is unnecessary and makes a prejudiced assumption that only women are capable of arbitrating complaints. This, as well as the “commitment to the cause of women” is addressed by Suggestion #4.

7.      The powers of the committee and the appeals process should be specified unambiguously. Inadequacies mentioned in (i) to (v) above need to be addressed explicitly. Clause 11(2)c, needs to be deleted, being not specific, ambiguous, and open to various interpretations.

8.      Monetary compensation should not be a part of conciliation proceedings. This would to a large extent help avoid potential for misuse.

9.      The complaint should be filed immediately on the occurrence of the alleged incident. Any complaint not filed within a stipulated time period (4 weeks) should be closely scrutinized for veracity before admission and the delay should be explained in writing by the complainant, to the satisfaction of the committee.

10. As prevalent in the western world, the Employer should bear the financial burden of the compensation ordered to the aggrieved person. The bill should clearly specify the action to be taken on the respondent in absence of service rules, as that it supposed to be the main purpose of this bill.

11. The committee should be divested of all powers to order any monetary compensation at any stage of the proceedings.

12. Mandatory action must be taken against the complainant when the complaint is found to be frivolous or malicious, within a maximum of 30 days.

13. Falsely accused person should have the right to pursue justice in a court of law, and claim appropriate redressal as remedy for the mental trauma, pain, suffering, emotional distress and social censure caused to the falsely accused person.

14. The quality of assistance to be provided by the Employer must be spelt out clearly and unambiguously in the bill.

15. Avoid duplication of law as the very bill states that remedies under present IPC are very much available for the same offense of sexual harassment and can also be easily applied when the perpetrator is not an employee. So why not apply the very same IPC laws on the employee itself and avoid duplication of laws. The government can alternatively, employ such, women NGO members, qualified as “committed to the cause of women” in various other upcoming social schemes.

16. Section 16 should be deleted. In the event the complainant or the respondent wishes to pursue the matter in judiciary, the enquiry report should be provided to concerned party.

Those who want to send this to Rajya Sabha can download the printer friendly format here


Trapping high profile men in sexual harassment cases has become a trend in the very recent past. Reports from various quarters of government and non governmental organizations have exposed a lot of truth to the extent that society quit buying rape cases. More and more people are becoming legally literate to understand that what comes in the package of “rape” is not what they have been taught by movies, but its genuine consensual sex, being used as Rape after break up or to wreck vengeance or to make money.

May be this is the reason why we hear less about rape and that too GANG rapes, once in a long while, and hear quite often about sexual harassment cases. You might have noticed that since the Sexual harassment bill is on the table of parliamentary committee, this trend and its pace has increased all of a sudden and beyond our imagination. The peculiarity of those cases that came up since the bill is on the table is that, its all from the chosen sectors which the bill ought to give protection; Sports, Movie, Airline, Army, Educational institutions and even pubs! A wide majority of those cases are already proven prima facie false.

Instead of finding the reasons and orchestrators what Men should do is to demand a law to protect them and their family from such sexual intimidations. Below is the draft and will be submitted to the law commission through proper channel after public discussion. Let us all Indian citizens have an open discussion and make it fail proof and fool proof.

Section 503(A). Sexual intimidation

Any woman threatens a man with any unlawful and baseless allegations or files such complaints or publish through print or visual or electronic media, where such allegations are of sexual or obscene or illicit nature and to cause harm to his reputation, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that man is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that man, or to cause that man to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that man is legally entitled to do, or to eliminate or demote him from his profession, or to make monetary or professional gains, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits sexual intimidation.

Explanation-A threat to injure the reputation of any man in whom the woman threatened is interested, is within this section.

Section 506(A). Punishment for sexual intimidation

Whoever commits, the offence of sexual intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine not less than 10 lakhs, or with both;

If threat be to cause emotional hurt or suicide of the man or his relatives, or to cause death or grievous hurt by any person or relatives or friends of the woman who makes such threats etc.: -And if the threat be to cause the destruction of his family or any of his relationships, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twelve years, or with fine not less than 25 lakhs, or with both.


News that you missed

Blog Stats

  • 45,170 hits