Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty
(1996) 1 SCC 490
Case Summary
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioner entered the Baptist College, Kohima as a Lecturer and the respondent was a student of the said college.On 10-6-1989, the petitioner visited the respondent’s house for the first time. Henceforth, a love affair developed between the two of them.The petitioner deceived the respondent with false promises of marrying her and as a result of sheer innocence the respondent fell into the trap and went through sexual intercourse with the petitioner . The petitioner furnished a false name, Bikash Gautam, in the nursing home which the respondent came to know in the second week of February 1995 when she went to obtain a certified copy of the abortion consent papers signed by him. On hearing that the petitioner was going to Silchar to join a Government College called Cachar College for which both of them had waited, she asked the petitioner to take her with him permanently. However, the petitioner refused to accept her as his wife saying that putting vermilion on forehead was not a valid marriage and that his parents will never accept her as their daughter-in-law. Even his friends could not convince him against abandoning the woman he had cohabited with for years.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
1. Whether there were grounds to quash all proceedings against the accused in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1995 at the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kohima.
2. Whether any further order could be passed by the Supreme Court in the case and by such order, Bodhisattwa Gautam could be directed to pay interim compensation to Subhra Chakraborty during the pendency of the Criminal Case against him.
RELEVANT ARTICLES
SECTION 376, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860: The issue in question is whether the Court has jurisdiction to award interim compensation to the victim. Section 376 deals with the crime of “sexual assault” and compensation for the same. The precedent of Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India was relied upon by the court to come to its decision.
ARTICLE 21, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: The Court held rape to be an offence against basic human rights. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the basic fundamental right of Right to Life. The Court held that Right to Life includes the right to live with human dignity. The offence of rape violates the fundamental right under Article 21.
ARTICLE 32, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: The Court can take suo moto cognizance of violation of fundamental rights or through PIL in absence of personal movement by the victim. The Court can enforce fundamental rights against private bodies and individuals under this article and can also award compensation for violation of Fundamental Rights
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court stated that women in this country suffer tyranny at the hands of men. It also stated the views of feminists. Further, it stated how women alone had the “capacity to shape the destiny and character of men anywhere and in every part of the world”. The language primarily hints at misandry in the judgement. The focus on “feminist” views in a Supreme Court judgement is incorrect as feminism as a movement is largely controversial and arguably, to a large extent, chauvinistic. Stating that women are responsible for the success and character of men is again a red flag indicating sexist bias. Further, the court generalises men to the extent of tyrannising over women and completely disregards the pressing matter of men being raped too. The Judgement fails to be an impartial and gender neutral precedent.
Comentarios