Men's groups are increasingly grabbing
media attention with baseless allegations of misuse of Section 498A and
the PWDVA by women. We publish a news item that appeared in the Times
of India on the 26th of June and our response to it.
TIMES OF INDIA (Delhi Edition); 26th June 2008' Pro-women laws being
misused''
NEW DELHI: Are we being fair on the not -so-fair sex? It would appear
not. Laws for protecting women like the anti-dowry legislation and the
domestic violence Act were vociferously opposed by men's groups on
Wednesday at a consultation initiated by the ministry for women and
child development and UNIFEM.
The burden of their argument was that these laws don't follow the
fundamental legal premise that a person is innocent until he is proven
guilty. "In 30% of the cases that come to us, there is a rift between
the woman and her in-laws where the woman forces the man to choose
between the two under the threat of slapping Section 498A of the Dowry
Prohibition Act on the husband and his family," said Ashish from Save
Indian Family (SIF). He added that there should be a deterrent to
prevent misuse of the law. Another representative Hemant from SIF said
that 1.2 lakh women (women relatives of husbands) were arrested under
the anti-dowry Act but the ministry of women and child development
minister was not doing anything about it. "Are you a wife development
or a woman development minister?" he asked. Dr Anumapa Singh, who
counsels couples, pointed to the anomaly in the domestic violence law
in that the aggrieved party could only be a woman while the respondent
could only be a male. "We have witnessed violence at home where the
perpetrator is a woman. So why does the law hold a man as the accused?"
she wanted to know. TOI had reacted to an observation of the Orissa
chairperson of the state commission for women on September 19, 2007,
when she had said that these laws were being abused. We had felt there
should be checks on such abuse and said, "In cases where a complaint is
proved false beyond doubt, the accuser must face a jail term." This
would act as a deterrent to the abuse of Sec 498A, we felt. At the
meeting on Wednesday, however, the men's group wanted the laws to be
scrapped altogether — which is not such a good idea as it is undeniable
that many women do get harassed by greedy husbands and in-laws and need
legal protection. Sanjay Bhartia of the Gender Human Rights Society
said, "We have been opposing the domestic violence Act and have even
submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister last year on the issue,"
he said. Bhartia added that there was need to review the laws that were
radically tilted in favour of women and open to misuse. Men's
organisations invited for the interaction landed up in huge numbers
with posters and banners, disrupting the consultation with their
sloganeering. Faced with vehement opposition, WCD minister Renuka
Chowdhury admitted that she was open to change the law. "Law-making is
a dynamic process. We are ready to change the law but as of now there
will be no amendments to it," she said. Reacting to the constant
allegations of misuse, Chowdhury said that there were enough deterrents
in the penal code to punish those found guilty of misuse. She, however,
did not spell out the deterrents. Wednesday's protest came at a time
when the Delhi police commissioner has issued instructions that only
the husband and not the extended family can be arrested in anti-dowry
cases. Reacting sharply to this, National Commission for Women
chairperson Girija Vyas said, "If the anti-dowry law is taken lightly,
women will suffer a huge loss. Only 6% of the cases are false under the
Act."
Speaking For Women
Asmita Basu LCWRI
If we are to go by any of yesterday’s newspaper reports it will appear
that not only is domestic violence a thing of the past but we are now
living in a matriarchal world in which women rule. The ‘biased’ state
enacts laws for women that perpetuate this system that subjugates men.
If this were to be true then why isit that sex ratios are getting
increasingly skewed to the disadvantage of women? Why does the NCRB
report increasing numbers of dowry death cases? Why does the NFHS III
report 37% incidence of violence against women within thedomestic
sphere? Why does the execution of maintenance orders take years? Whyare
women granted a pittance in the name of maintenance on the breakdown of
marriage for which they have sacrificed their careers and their lives
to support men and bring up children? Why women are specifically
targeted during communal violence? How many women are covered by
industrial labor laws? Images of violated women running from pillar to
post for just justice aren’t newsworthy any longer - we have seen such
reports for so long that we are rendered immune.Since we are no longer
outraged we no longer seek answers to these basic questions or even ask
ourselves why women are lagging behind men in all spheres of life be it
in employment, education, or health. Instead it is far more interesting
to hear men’s groups claiming to be harassed. This piece does not argue
that all women are saints or that men cannot be harassed. This piece
isto remind citizens that a majority of women still face discrimination
within the home and outside. Just because women are joining the work
force or takingrecourse under the law does not mean that the battle for
equality has been won.We cannot lose sight of the larger picture proven
through official statistics by generalizing individual experiences even
if they are valid. Had the battle for equality rights been won there
would be no need for gender specific laws. Must we remind the reader
that it is the legislature that makes laws in public interest? May we
also mention that 90% of parliament and state legislatures that make
laws are constituted by men? Men are in the majority in the government,
the police and in the judiciary. (We do not have a single woman judge
in the Supreme Courtt oday) How can anyone claim that men’s voices
aren’t heard?
The reported meeting called by the Ministry of Women and Child
Development and the UNIFEM onthe 25th of June 2008 was to initiate a
dialogue with men’s groupsto be partners in the struggle against
violence. Men’s groups working with men to break patriarchal mindsets
were also present at the meeting, though theywere completely ignored by
the media. The 2 hour meeting was extended by an additional 3 hours to
ensure that all those who were present were given an opportunity to
speak. During the course of the meeting, not only was everyone heard
but personal assurances were given by the Minister to look into genuine
complaints of harassment. The scribes, rushing off to file their
stories and meet their deadlines halfway through the meeting, were in
no position to accurately report on the proceedings. Instead what got
reported were complaints of some individuals creating a furor outside
the meeting.
The meeting was to initiate dialogue with men’s groups and it was
successful in doing so.What came through from hearing individual cases
is that there are instances of harassment by the police and inadequate
legal representation in cases filed under Section 498A of the IPC.
These forms of harassment are not peculiar to cases brought by women or
through the use of gender specific laws (or euphemistically “pro women”
laws). This raises larger questions on the working of the criminal
justice system as a whole. It brings to the fore the need for
guidelines to be issued to the police on the manner in which cases
under Section 498A should be dealt with, particularly at the time of
filing, to avoid harassment to vulnerable groups such as elderly
parents and minors. It must be understood harassment by he law is not
perpetrated by women but by non-application of mind by the individual
policemen and profiteering lawyers. This is not to say that all police
are not performing their tasks in a proper manner. There is no official
study of the prevalence of police harassment and till such time this is
done there can be no generalizations on the manner in which such laws
are used.
This brings usto the issue of ‘misuse’. Till today there has been no
definition of this term.The NFHS III indicates that only 2% of women
facing violence seek institutional intervention. Under the broad
heading of ‘institutional intervention’ we can safely assume that not
all of them are complaints to the police as women may approach other
for a such as local NGO’s, family counseling centers or even the courts
directly. Even assuming that a majority, lets take the higher number of
1.5%,file complaints under criminal law, it cannot be assumed that all
such complaints are false. This leaves, on a higher estimate, 1% of all
police complaints to be false. Do 1% of false complaints filed on
behalf of 37% women facing domestic violence in a population that
constituted of 50% by women justify a call for the repeal of gender
specific laws? What about the rest of the women who do not complain at
all? On the other hand-even in cases of false complaints, the matter
will ultimately reach the court of law that shall adjudicate on the
basis of evidence produced. The courts are bound by the constitutional
mandate of following due process. Does this not put in place adequate
checks and balances to weed out false complaints? If there is any
harassment faced during the course of these proceedings then it is a
failure ofthe justice delivery system and cannot be blamed on gender
specific laws.
Gender specific laws, enacted under Article 15(3) of the Constitution
that allows the state to take special measures for women and children,
are to remedy historical disadvantages. Men, being the bread winners,
have better access to justice simply due to their position of
privilege. It is easier for them to take action under the general laws
of the land when compared to women. A gender specific was necessary as
empirical statistics (the NCRB reports, etc) showed that men are
violent towards women.
On the other hand, just because gender just laws enhance access to
justice for women, does not mean that general laws of the land
disappear. If men are facing violence within the home, what stops them
from taking recourse under the general laws of the land such as
provisions contained in the IPC on simple hurt, grievous hurt, criminal
intimidation to name a few, or injunctions / divorces under civil law?
If the police refuse to register such complaints then it is the fault
of the individual police and not the legal framework as whole.
The other fear expressed at the meeting was of breaking up families by
use of gender specific laws. Assuming that the preservation of the
family is a matter of state policy isn’t the prevention of violence
also as important? Similar fears of breaking up families were brought
up at the time of recognizing a Hindu woman’s right to divorce. Fifty
years after its promulgation have these fears been proven?
This is an urgent plea to stop biased reporting. Harassment through the
use of “pro-women”criminal laws is not due to “misuse” by women but due
to the failures of thejustice delivery system. We need to identify the
problem accurately and examine ways in which concerns can be addressed
in a rational and just manner. Violence against women is a continuing
concern not only in India but across the world. Laws to prevent
violence are only a step forward. Laws provide the only non violent
means to end violence. Ending violence calls for larger campaigns to
recognize women as equal stakeholders- this cannot be achieved without
theactive participation and support of men. This was the reason for
calling themeeting yesterday and this was message that was meant to go
out.
http://www.lawyerscollective.org/content/speaking-women
Copyright @ 2007 Lawyers Collective.
