The binary of modesty/immodesty is also rooted in the cliched links people make between sexuality and communities, said researcher Sahai. “There are persons whose sexuality is always deemed to be ‘excessive’ — women from Dalit, Adivasi or Bahujan communities, sex workers, persons from the Hijra and other communities. Due to their identity, their appropriateness is never considered sufficient enough to be protected from such violations,” they pointed out. Then there are groups that are believed to be sexually “lacking”, such as transgender men, disabled persons, or aged men, and because of this sexual crimes perpetrated on them go unrecognised, they added.
As we have reported, sexual violence is often used to reinforce caste hierarchies and the “honour” of women from marginal communities is violated to show them their “place”. There have been few convictions under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities, POA) Act, 1989 in cases where the charge of sexual violence has been added under the IPC: the conviction rate in 2017-2019 in crimes under the PoA including rape and sexual harassment was about 27% and about 84% of cases were pending trial, as per the government’s 2021 report on Atrocities and Crimes Against Women and Children.
In the case of the rape of a Dalit minor girl, Ramdas & Ors. v State of Maharashtra, the apex court set aside the conviction under the Prevention of Atrocities Act stating that the mere fact of the victim’s caste does not attract conviction under the Act. In yet another case, Khuman Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court said there was not enough evidence to show that the offence was committed because the deceased victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
In a more recent observation, the apex court addressed the interplay between caste and gender of a victim of sexual violence, but the lack of evidence led to an acquittal. During the trial of the accused persons in the 2006 atrocities against Dalits in Khairlanji, Maharashtra, the court convicted them only for murder as no charge of rape was made due to the lack of evidence. It observed that the atrocities were rooted in revenge and not caste.
By placing an unrealistic expectation of burden of proof in cases such as this, the justice system neglects the socio-legal context in which the atrocities are perpetuated, say legal experts.
“The manner in which the legal system operates is not very different from the Manusmriti. Thus our laws and society consider those from marginalised communities as outliers. They are deemed to not inherit the same ‘modesty’, that is necessary for the “ideal victim” framework of the courts,” said Wadekar.
Even before the case reaches the court, there are multiple actors [who deal with it] such as the police authorities, the medical officers, the forensic officers, etc and even at these stages the scrutiny and investigation are not unbiased but a judgement is passed, she added.
From her experience in litigation, Wadekar points out that cases of sexual violence against Bahujan women are not even registered by the police. Instead, they are quick to file counter-cases brought by the alleged harasser. When the case reaches the courts, it appears from the police records that the accused person’s case was filed first and the victim’s filed in reaction to it.Police authorities often ask the victim to enter into a compromise with the alleged accused and settle it outside court, she added.
“A victim of sexual violence relies on the state for justice but the victim ends up being humiliated and re-victimised at the hands of the state authorities, due to her caste thus completely disregarding the violation of her bodily autonomy and the caste-based violence perpetuated against the victim,” Wadekar told us.