No. This is not about the RG Kar Medical College case. Not that I am not concerned about it. I am. And my solidarities with the struggle for justice (whatever that might mean) for the woman doctor.
But this article is about exploring nuanced responses to a complaint of sexual harassment closer home, and the issues that it has left or, rather, have got thrown up in its trail. There is a complaint, from a woman lawyer, of sexual harassment by a colleague. The woman lawyer feels that her complaint is not being followed up with the attention it deserves. So, predictably, she is accompanied by friends who are concerned about the consequences now that she has outed her grievance, and are bothered about the accused being embrazened by the sheer fact of seeming inaction by the police.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Notice is sent to the accused lawyer. There is statedly no response. And a Lady PSI is instructed to go to the residence of that lawyer, whose father and brother are also lawyers. She reportedly had a pistol with her, as she was on her way back from some other police activity that required a pistol, when she got the instructions. There is also talk of the new breed of police acting as they like in brazen violation of the rule of law, on the strength that they have bribed or influenced their way through to their positions, or on the strength of their connections with people in power, and therefore, the need to weaponize this case to come down on such acts of police and send a clear message to the police that their political connections do not mean that they can have a care-a-damn approach.
There are allegations that the Lady PSI was rude to the lawyer father, and the lawyer father, in the mean time, is reported to have got his family out of the way (meaning out of the house) lest they have to face the police, and is believed to have committed suicide. Then there is the suicide note, which says the Lady PSI and the constable accompanying her were responsible for his suicide.
Then comes reaction from people who style themselves as an advocates’ union. It is one thing to be concerned about the death of a colleague and another thing to support his son in pursuit of justice for the suicide that according to him his father was driven to. If that is how advocates’ organisations extend support, there is something seriously lumped with gender prejudice here. Why was such support as an advocates’ union/association not forthcoming for the woman lawyer with a grievance of sexual harassment?
Then there is the discussion about young Lady PSIs being rude. As if police have a history of being polite. I am not talking of exceptions here. But the entire training of police and the armed forces, for that matter, seems to be predicated on a certain masculinity. A certain strength and sadistic pleasure that is derived from abusing and hurting. The strength is not perceived in conducting thorough just and equitable investigations and inquiries. This is where, as civil society, we need to change the entire track of police styles of investigation and inquiry and let them know, that as per our Constitutional values, rudeness and third degree methods are passe.
I have not been able to verify all of the above details. But I believe that we need to nuance our responses. We need to let it be known that women PSIs inquiring or investigating sexual harassment cases should not be working in an atmosphere, where macho males (including any from the lawyer community) are going to pounce on them when acting in the course of their duty. At the same time, we also need to let it be known that whether it is women police officers or male police officers or other police officers if any, they have no business to be rude to anyone, in any investigations or inquiries – not only these. They can be firm, but not rude. Police officers are tasked with enforcing the law. Further, they cannot call out the occupation of the accused as a lawyer, to say that a protesting lawyer should take recourse to the law. Lawyers like other citizens have the right to protest.
Also – and this has been written before in this column – instruction by senior police officers to junior police officers should be in writing, so that junior police officers are not pulled up for something that they are directed by senior police officers to do, or that senior police officers equally share responsibility for actions taken, and thus it is ensured that everyone acts responsibly.
There is also the issue being brought up of the mental illness of the accused lawyer. We do not know the facts. Whether he was mentally ill, or whether as many politically powerful or connected persons tend to do, he got himself admitted in a Government facility to escape interrogation. If he was mentally ill, how should this issue be dealt with, while at the same time, protecting the rights of the woman lawyer complainant, is the point. Ensuring that he has access to mental health services as well as legal services is important. Sadly, to this day, the rules have not been framed under the Mental Health Act. It would be good if advocates’ associations will expend their energies in advocating for these rules to be framed and even organizing discussions around these.
Talking of mental health, it is already recognized by the Vishakha Judgement that sexual harassment has consequences for the health of the victim. Given this, what steps are being taken generally to ensure that the complainant’s trauma emerging from the sexual harassment is addressed? Access to mental health services and support is critical for the woman complainant. We know of so many cases where women leave their institutions or abandon their occupations, because of pressures from a society that still blames the woman complainant. Our practices as lawyers have to be trauma informed.
Often, we wait for extreme situations such as the one at RG Kar, or Nirbhaya before that, but as the late Justice Verma of the Justice Verma Committee fame rightly said, it is the ‘small’ acts that lead up to big acts, and therefore we need to be alert when the ‘small’ acts are complained of, and not be dismissive of them.
There is another disturbing trend these days, in civil society, where positions are taken based on the political affiliations of the complainant or the accused or the law enforcement connected with the particular case, or on the basis of the religion or caste affiliation of the stake holders. This is unacceptable. We have a responsibility as responsible citizens and if we are lawyers, then, as responsible lawyers, to uphold the rule of law. It is shameful that citizens are taking partisan positions.
The situation therefore is one where we are at the junction of women’s rights, mental health issues, rule of law, complainant lawyer colleague’s well-being, accused lawyer colleague’s wellbeing and lawyer colleague’s lawyer colleague father’s suicide. And supporting the complainant to pursue her grievance/complaint of sexual harassment need not mean endorsement of any acts of police outside the course of their duty, if they have done so. Protocols are in place and have been issued under the new batch of criminal laws. The same must be widely circulated and popularized. Apart, of course, from forming part of the police training. The police reforms as directed by the Supreme Court, and long pending, are yet to be implemented in toto in Goa. Goa Police Bills that have been drafted in the name of implementing police reforms, have almost always been drafted in ways that are looking at subverting the reforms. And nowhere is there any talk about accountability of the police – both for their acts of commission, and their acts of omission by way of failure to do due diligence.
Navigating these intertwined issues requires an equitable, accountability demanding, empathetic, and holistic approach, ensuring that all parties receive the support and resources they need.
(Albertina Almeida is a lawyer and human rights activist)
