Why Judiciary Must Unlearn Gender-Based Assumptions Regarding Professions

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court said that a woman who is as empowered as a police officer can also be subjected to domestic violence. The court stated that the judiciary should unlearn gender-based or socially stereotypical assumptions regarding any profession. The court was dealing with a plea filed by a woman who is a police officer that challenged the session's court order of discharging her husband, who is also a police officer, of the charges of cruelty to his wife. 

The sessions court dismissed the charges under Section 498A (cruelty) read with Section 34 (act done with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) filed against the husband saying that both husband and wife are police officers. 

How the judgement of the sessions court was biased

The high court bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a judge's opinion in a case cannot be gendered or based on social stereotypes of how a person of a particular profession must behave. The judge said that it is unjustified and biased to assume that a police officer cannot be subjected to domestic violence. 

Justice Sharma further pointed out how a woman's professional has been used against her. She said, "Moreover, the present case also presents a contradictory view where both the husband and the wife are working on equal status/ post in Delhi Police, however, the position of the wife as police officer has been held against her observing that since she is a Police officer, she cannot be intimidated, harassed, dowry cannot be demanded from her, she cannot be tolerant to save her marriage, totally ignoring her specific allegation and submission that she had kept on waiting and hoping her return to her matrimonial home and saving her marriage. Conversely, it has been held that since the accused husband is in the Police, he will not intimidate his wife.” 

Talking about the hidden biases in the judgement of the sessions court, Justice Sharma upheld “gender neutrality in judicial decision-making."

She said, "The present case of a female police officer, deemed incapable of being victimized, solely due to her profession is an illustration of the insidious nature of our hidden biases."

Calling the dismissal of the woman's claim as the highest kind of perversity in judgment, Justice Sharma said, "To harbour assumptions, especially as a judge, that a woman, by her profession as a police officer, cannot possibly be a victim in her own personal or matrimonial life, is a form of injustice of its kind and one of the highest kinds of perversity which can be seen in a judgment."

She further condemned the judgement by saying, "Judicial decisions, premised on such assumptions, are examples of court’s refusal to recognize the complex realities of people’s lives, and defiance of law, logic and empathy." 

Justice Sharma condemned the Sessions Court for presuming that police officers cannot be subjected to domestic violence. She said that the court should have listened to the specific incidents of dowry demand and torture meted out to the woman.

The complexity of gender violence cases among empowered people 

Acknowledging the fact that the cases of domestic violence or other forms of cruelty against women who are seemingly empowered have distinct characteristics, Justice Sharma said, "To dismiss the sufferings of women in positions of authority as mere fabrication or deceit would be grave injustice to victims of domestic violence, and holding so would also be equal to holding that no woman who is either a police officer or an officer of administrative services or even a judicial officer or any other woman considered empowered by societal norms or in a position of authority or dominance will ever be considered as a victim. Therefore, a court of law cannot make sweeping generalizations about the credibility of the allegations levelled in a complaint on the basis of the gender of the victims and their professional stature." 

The need to include gender sensitivity in judicial proceedings

The court stressed the point that there is a need to integrate gender sensitivity in judicial proceedings and education. The judge said, "Given the complexity of contemporary legal disputes, particularly in matters where there may not be only two genders but more given different sexual orientations and preferences, the judicial academies, which carry the most important burden of training their protégés, must include in their curriculum the chapters addressing the perils of unrecognized gender and other biases which get reflected in the judgments.” 

The Delhi Judicial Academy was directed to include topics like gender equality and cultural diversity in the curriculum and continuous judicial program. With this, the high court quashed the session's court judgement. 

Why is the judgment a landmark?

This judgment is a landmark because it takes into consideration the fact that crimes against women are not based on their profession. Such crimes only view women as objects, properties to conquer and means to meet dowry demands. It is the same logic that applies when we claim that sexual crimes are not based on the clothes, food choices or character of the woman. 

Recently, a case came to the forth in which a female constable was verbally harassed while being on duty. Janak Ram, was in a drunken state when he used the sexually coloured remark. He allegedly said, "Kya darling, challan karne aayi hai kya? (Hi, darling, have you come to impose a fine?)". 

Justice Jay Sengupta at Calcutta High Court had said that calling an unknown woman 'darling' is offensive under Sections 354A (outraging modesty of a woman) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Domestic violence among working women is higher than non-working women 

As far as domestic violence is concerned, a study of 2014 which was centred in the Sunderpur area of Varanasi revealed that the rate of domestic violence amongst working women was 86.7 per cent. While the rate of crime against non-working women was comparatively low at 73.3 per cent.

The core reason behind this, I believe, is the clash of egos. When women are working, the male ego that is fanned by being financially empowered is hurt which leads to gendered crimes. Moreover, working women cannot file complaints because of the assumption that how could a working woman, an empowered and educated woman, be subjected to such crimes? The question is raised on them rather than the abuser- exactly what happened in the case above. 

Moreover, the idea that working and educated husbands, especially those who are protectors of the law, cannot inflict violence on women is also false. The research I stated above also revealed that 35 per cent of husbands who committed domestic violence were involved in business. In addition to this, we have seen many cases of police officers harassing women.

How the protectors of law have harassed women

In December last year, a policeman in Uttar Pradesh's capital city hurled abuses at a woman inside the police station using objectionable language. In the video, posted on 'X', the cop is seen shouting at the woman even though she reminded him to watch his language. The cop uses objectionable language and tone stating, "Did I put my hands around your waist? Did I open your underpants?" while abusing the woman. He also hurled Hindi cuss words at the woman. 

 In January, a Dalit woman was raped by a police constable who then strangled her to death. The incident happened in Agra, UP. The 25-year-old Dalit woman's body was found hanging in the apartment of the constable.

In the same month, a video went viral in which a Dalit woman was being assaulted by a police officer in Bihar's Sitamarhi. In the video, the officer was seen ruthlessly beating the woman with a stick out in the open, where the public just witnessed the injustice rather than taking action.

Aren't these cases enough to understand how men can be disrespectful and violent towards women irrespective of their education or profession? 

The need of the time is not just to provide education to men and women. But, as Justice Sharma said, there is a need to teach everyone about gender equality, cultural diversity and gender sensitization. In addition to this, people need to be taught about the law against gendered crimes and their consequences. Then, we can proudly say that educated and empowered people won't subject others or be subjected to gendered crimes. 

Views expressed are the author's own