The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court’s decision earlier this week convicting – and sentencing for ten years of incarceration – Tarun Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka magazine, of sexually assaulting a former colleague arrived as a reckoning of the victim’s thirteen years of a Sisyphean struggle through relentlessness, shaming and facing the regressive churn of our courts. In 2021, eight years after Tejpal was first accused of raping a junior colleague in the elevator of a Goa resort, abusing his position of authority, which he later confessed over email, framing the accusations as political slander, a Goa court in Mapusa had acquitted Tejpal.
That judgment, which arrived after the Supreme Court initially dismissed his plea challenging the framing of charges, noting that the allegations were “very serious, affecting the dignity of a woman”, had seriously undermined how dignity of survivors must be maintained through the challenge of legal processes. Central to the Court’s reasoning, at that time, was its conviction of what an ‘ideal victim’ must look like – noting that the prosecutrix, despite claiming to have suffered from shock and trauma, seemed too “composed” exiting the lift. She even, the Court noted, was seen smiling in photographs later on. “The CCTV footage shows a change to the prosecutrix’s narrative both of the physical circumstances of the moments and of her claims of distress, tears, trauma and resistance,” it noted.
That judgment, which allowed Tejpal the life of a free man for close to a decade, survives today as an important record of the Indian judiciary’s horrific complicities in peddling misogynistic stereotypes against survivors, and its befuddled imagination of what constitutes ‘consent’. Writing in The Leaflet in 2021, Kavita Krishnan had noted, after an exhaustive deconstruction of the trial court order’s many flaws:
“We need to reflect on how larger social and political discourses converge to treat the testimony by a feminist as a lie, as a conspiracy and as immoral. Judicial training of women in the bar on feminism in law is urgent to counteract this trend, for a feminist method is central to ensuring a fair trial for rape survivors. If the Tejpal verdict is allowed to stand, it will set a dangerous precedent for every rape case to come; and will intimidate and deter every rape survivor from seeking justice.”
Another important reading I was led to from that time was Disha Wadekar’s comment in EPW, locating the court’s search for an ‘ideal victim’ in the Tejpal case as being rooted, essentially, in Brahminical patriarchy. It asked in the end: “How can our justice system safeguard the personhood guaranteed by the Constitution, when it appears to be borrowing from Brahminical patriarchal framework to assess the credibility of survivors?”
The judgment this week held that “the standard of proof expected in such cases must take into account that such crimes are generally committed on the sly, and that direct evidence from a person other than the victim is very rarely available.” In the process, it may have laid to rest the trial court order’s problematic legacy. We have a deep-dive breakdown of the High Court’s judgment this week.
Justice Liberhan’s complicated legacy
Earlier this week, retired Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan passed away at the age of 87. The Liberhan Commission, which he led, submitted its report after seventeen years, in 2009, finding that the Babri mosque’s demolition was a carefully orchestrated conspiracy, and holding cadres and leadership of the RSS and BJP guilty. But as historian V. Krishna Ananth argues in The Leaflet this week, this is perhaps an oversimplified understanding of the Liberhan report. “It is far less discussed that the report failed to recognise the accountability of the Union government in the events leading up to the demolition, apportioned blame upon Muslims for being led by “fanatic” leaders, and helped establish the logic that the ‘dispute’, arising from a brutal demolition, was something to be “negotiated” between the communities,” Ananth writes, “In some ways, it paved the logic of how constitutional courts, in later years, would frame and eventually dispose of the issue.”
Delhi’s heat action plan is far removed from the lives of workers
Yesterday, we published the first part of what promises to be a significant two part series on how the Delhi government’s adopted strategy to tackle extreme heat – a recurring crisis of the national capital – discounts the lives of informal workers. Lawyer and researcher Sagrika Rajora writes, “The series makes the case that extreme heat should be notified and resourced as a disaster in its own right, and it documents, through sustained fieldwork, what heat means for the informal workers who cannot stop working through it.”
Books: Raju Moray’s book puts the ‘fun’ in law
This week, we have a brilliant book review of Raju Moray’s fascinating book ‘Fun in Law’ which breaks down the daily grind of lawyering with tongue in cheek humour and stories that, though set in fiction, capture the law’s many twists and turns with realism. As advocate Siddharth S. Chandrashekhar notes,
“There is no attempt to impress the reader with legalese or to prove a point about how challenging the profession can be. Instead each story ambles along at the pace of an old colleague telling you something over a cup of chai in the corridor outside a courtroom, waiting for a matter to be called. That pace is itself part of the charm, because it mirrors what litigation actually feels like on most days, long stretches of waiting punctuated by moments that are either absurd or profound, sometimes both at once.”
Our ability to report and bring forth expert writing on critical developments in labour law depends on the support we receive from our readers. Thank you for subscribing to us. Consider recommending our subscription (starting at only Rs 1,770 a year, and Rs 590 a year for students) with a friend, family member, or fellow enthusiast of honest and driven legal journalism.
We write because we care. Write back to us with your thoughts.
