Skip to main content

Sexist remarks

 SEXIST REMARKS 


Sexist remarks made in the court, however subconscious be it,  is very common within the four walls of the courtrooms of Indian Judiciary. In the case of M.I Shadad vs Mohd. Abdullah Mir in the Jammu & Kashmir high court delivered by Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar, Judge and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Judge held that serving of summons only of male adult member of the family, in the absence of the defendant was not discriminatory towards women. This was due to the age old Indian system where women having no identity outside her role of serving as  house-wives, going through motherhood, pregnancy, menstruation, mostly illiteracy or Parda Nashin. This legislation was passed so that Indian women were not expected to give out such services, rather expected to stay home and follow the social norms of the Indian society. The laws on marital rape is explicitly sexist as it gives out the notion that aa woman’s body is a legal possession of her husband, it is a serious issue of human rights violation where a woman cannot refuse consent to sex because there are no laws backed by Indian Judiciary to protect them. This exception in section 375 of the Indian  Penal Code needs to be reviewed or done away with completely. 

In the Karnataka high court, in the case Raja vs State of Karnataka, the Judge granted yet  again gave an anticipatory bail to the man accused for rape and commented that it is “unbecoming of Indian women” to go to sleep after  being raped”. They were disappointed and found it unusual that the woman after being raped didn’t “ hurry back home in a humiliated and a devastated state. ” In the Guwahati High Court case of Md. Jakir Ali vs The State of Assam, a woman was cheated into having sexual intercourse with the man (accused) in promise of marriage, after she became pregnant he denied marrying he or taking responsibility of their child. Even though the accused was convicted under Section 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code for Punishment for sexual assault and cheating respectively, there were discussions in the courtroom where they remarked the woman of easy virtue and very luke warmly address sexual assault, rather they focused more on how a woman’s Chasity or virginity which they believe so to be the most valuable “possession” for a woman is taken away from her through deception. So they opined that a “good woman” is one that ``protects' ' her  chastity or virginity. In a Bombay  High Court  granted bail to a rape accused on the  grounds stating that  the  victim was a women of loose virtue and used to do dirty stuff.

 This is a  chronic problem of of the Indian Judiciary and sexism and gender based discrimination must take a back seat. Although it seems that it’ll take us some time to get to the position of having a gender neutral courtroom trials, we can begin by assembling legal expectations to take a stand in such matters, creating a conducive space for women lawyers where they are taken seriously and appointing more female judges to the judiciary. We are also looking towards a better time when this nation will finally see its first female Chief Justice


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree