No benefit to survivor, just paper service: Kerala High Court calls for overhaul of Victim Protection System for sexual assault survivors

The Kerala High Court on Monday called for an overhaul of the victim protection system for sexual-assault survivors especially in light of the fact that several survivors are forced to approach the court seeking police protection, when the same should be afforded to them at the first instance. .Justice Devan Ramachandran raised the issue while hearing a plea filed by a survivor of a sexual attack, who had approached the Court alleging harassment not just from the accused but even from two police officers. .The Court noted from a report filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, that even though a victim's liaison officer had been appointed as per existing protocols, the survivor still had to visit the police station several times without the presence of said officer.This prompted it to call for an overhaul of the victim protection system."When somebody makes a complaint of rape, 100 per cent anonymity is to be ensured, that person cannot even go to the police station. That is why I’m saying, what is this victim protocol? If the victim protocol has to be meaningful and a girl or a woman has to come forward and make a complaint, that person should have the minimum guarantee of being told that their dignity will be safe. Here, the case is usually that the victim has to go to the police station and make the complaint, give statements etc. We have to now overhaul victim protection systems," Justice Ramachandran orally remarked. .The Court's order further stated that "if the victim protection protocols are put to effect in this manner, then certainly the victims would not get any benefit apart from there being a paper service". .Justice Ramachandran also lamented that if the Court intervenes in such matters it gets accused of exceeding its limits even though, in his opinion, there are no limits on the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. "Please understand, individuals who come to the court or to the police station are often left without any other option... If we say anything, the court gets derided. We get accused of exceeding our limits, there are no limits for this court under Article 226 If I’m here to take care of a victim, I’m here to take care of them till the end, otherwise I cannot sit here as a constitutional judge. I’m concerned about the victim first, then the police".The survivor, represented by advocate Dheeraj, approached the Court alleging that after she had approached the police, she has been facing harassment from the accused as well as the police officers. It was submitted that she had later gone to the police station seeking permission to medically terminate the pregnancy that resulted from the assault, but she was told that it is not up to the police to grant the same.Government Pleader EC Bineesh submitted that it is indeed not within the police's power to allow or deny the same under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.The Court, however, opined that it was the duty of the victim protection liaison to advise her on the legalities involved in the matter and to ensure the protection of her anonymity, by taking her statements at her residence instead of forcing her to go to the police station.The Court took strong exception to the fact that the report said that the survivor went to the station “ surprisingly one day” , even after the liaison officer had been appointed."The presence of the victim liaison officer is conspicuously under a cloud since it is the said officer who should have advised the victim appropriately since she is not a legally trained person as are most of the other citizens of this State," the order stated.The Court directed the police to immediately have the victim's liaison officer meet the petitioner and advise and lead her with regard to her plea under Section 164A (medical examination of the victim of rape) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court further underscored the need to ensure the survivor's anonymity, stating,"I make it clear that the un-expendable requirements of anonymity of the petitioner under the salutary Victim Protection Protocols shall be maintained at every stage and that she is not exposed, either to Police Station or to the public, and put to further vexation or distress"The matter will be taken up next on December 10..[Read Order]