Progressive judges, progressive judiciary

We talk about patriarchy and misogyny in this country in almost abstract terms. But there are flashes where we are made privy to where the source of such a blight is: patriarchs and misogynists - in other words, individuals. It becomes far worse when such individuals are in positions of power. As is Supreme Court Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma. Last week, by their account, a 40-year-old woman is not a victim of rape because 'she is no baby', and because she 'travelled voluntarily' with the man accused of the alleged rape. Almost incidentally, the 23-year-old accused 'social media influencer' was given interim bail. The way sexual violence has been minimised by those entrusted with the law in this case is staggering. In doing so, the justices ignored charges of rape, blackmail, exploitation and extortion that the police had found credible enough to act in the first place.

Much like temples, courts - with the Supreme Court as its apogee - are where people seek redressal of wrongs and protection of rights. In that sense, they not only deliver law but also provide a moral compass for society to use as direction. For judges to frame and utter regressive notions in the context of sexual abuse like 'a single hand can't clap' is not just preposterous but scandalous.

Indian courts need progressive, sensitive judges. Judges at all levels must be mindful of the impact their rulings can have beyond the courtroom. The language they use and the principles they uphold send powerful signals to society, shaping public attitudes and trust in justice. Careless or regressive judgments risk undermining progress and damaging the moral authority courts must maintain to guide a modern, inclusive society.