question_answer

A string of cases was seen to adopt a Feminist Jurisprudential approach. To impede sexual harassment of working women, the Court laid down certain exhaustive guidelines in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and it all only went uphill from that point. After the ruling of cases in favour of the surge of women in society related to different genera of societal and legal problems such as inheritance of property, marriage, child custody, the sale of acid and acid attacks, guardianship and foeticides, even personal laws were subjected to a Feminist Jurisprudential approach.

However, in recent judgements such as the Sabarimala judgement, a flagrant divergence can be noticed with regard to the fundamental comprehension of feminism in itself. Through the popularization of movements like the #MeToo Movement in which the accusations may or not be authentic, the Judiciary is misusing the concept of Feminist Jurisprudence in itself to gain legal popularity. In the path of making women feel empowered and giving them autonomy, society is moving toward dichotomy, which is tyranny in disguise and is prone to curtail attainment of gender justice.

Earlier, there was an overshadowing of women by men in India, and now what is sought is the overshadowing of men by women. This pattern of repetition in the domination of one sex over another shows the need for a feeling of being in command.

First and foremost, a lacuna in Indian law needs to be addressed. In the IPC, rape is defined in an inadequate manner with a narrow scope as something that only a man can do to a woman and that a man can only be sodomised. However, according to a recent amendment, rape is now inclusive of oral sex and anal sex as well. Moreover, since Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code has been partially decriminalized in the Navtej case, men are more prone to rape. Hence it can no longer be stated that women cannot rape men. Other crimes that provide relief only to women in India are stalking, sexual harassment, voyeurism and outraging of modesty. The existence of discrimination in these sections violates Constitutional provisions of Article 14 and Article 15. According to the maxim ‘'ubi jus ibi remedium’', where there is a right, there is a remedy. Considering this aspect, as the right to equality and equal protection under the law is denied to men, a remedy must be provided for the same.

Some usual reasons cited for not making these crimes gender neutral are that a woman lacks the power to rape a man and that it would worsen the state of women in the country as it encourages counter-complaints. Ironically, the reasons are in itself massively discriminatory in nature as it leads to the portrayal of domination of men through victimisation of women. Recently, a petition had been filed by the Criminal Justice Society of India based on landmark judgements such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India to make rape gender-neutral but it was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stating that actions are being taken for such an amendment. The point that is being neglected is that these actions must have started years ago.

The definition of rape and other crimes being patriarchal in nature ignorantly oversees that a crime cannot be subject to extremes like sexual orientation, gender or caste. While it seems like women are being protected, feminism is moving toward an establishment of domination in the process of feeling empowered. Every human being is subject to such monstrosities and must have protection under the law for the same and that is how gender justice can be truly achieved.

How can gender justice be achieved according to the author?

A) By creation of more laws in favour of women

B) By protecting each individual under law in the same manner

C) By redefining rape laws

D) By toning down the patriarchal laws