Why does police need court directive to behaveIJ
It is shocking that the Supreme Court has had to issue guidelines on what should have been standard operating procedure in police stations to handle sex crimes. Earlier this week, the apex court, while hearing a 1990 rape case from Madhya Pradesh, observed that the police is duty bound to provide proper medical attention that includes psychiatric help to the victims at the earliest. The court also said the police ought to ensure that necessary tests are carried out by lady doctors, that detailed reports are prepared afterwards so that they can be used as forensic evidence, and also that statements from the victims are taken in the presence of family members in a comfortable environment. The court also made clear that it was the political establishment — particularly the Union Ministry for Home Affairs — and the Director General of Police, who were responsible for implementing these procedures. After all, victims of sex crimes do deserve a “totally different kind of treatment” from the authorities, the Supreme Court observed. However, these victims are most often the ones who suffer the most — not only is their physical person violated the first time by the perpetrator, they are subjected to untold agony as they go through the judicial process, made worse by the gross insensitivity on the part of the law enforcement officials across the board. Take for instance, the case that was being heard — apart from the fact that it has dragged on for more than 20 years, the case had initially been decided in favour of the accused by a trial court in 1992 on the ground that the victim had not attacked her rapist “like a wild animal”. This was considered to be proof of her consent even though at 15 years of age, the victim was below the age of consent — a fact that even the prosecution managed to overlook.
Over the years, there have been innumerable such cases wherein either the police's failure to put forth an effective first response or the prosecution's inability to put together a strong case or even the archaic nature of our criminal justice system (think of the regressive two-finger test which examines a rape victims' vaginal laxity so as to guess if the victim was ‘habituated to sex', as if that is somewhat synonymous with consent) has meant that sexual predators have slipped through the gaping holes in the system. Moreover, the fact that no effort was made to define police protocol in handling rape cases even after large-scale public outrage against the police forces' inept response in such situation is telling. Be it the December 16 gang rape case or the more recent April 15 rape case involving a five-year-old or the shocking incarceration of a minor rape victim in Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh in between, the police's lackadaisical, abrasive and in some cases blatantly illegal, actions have come in for scathing criticism.Yet, going by the apex court’s directions, it is evident that police personnel have been no less callous that they have traditionally been. Will things change for the better nowIJ