Marital rape judgment highly misogynistic, problematic: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising recently, in an interview, said that the judgment of Delhi High Court's Justice C Hari Shankar ruling against criminalising marital rape was highly misogynistic and very problematic..The senior counsel was speaking at an interview on Behind the Bar, when asked about her opinion on the Delhi High Court's split verdict regarding criminalisation of marital rape..Jaising opined that it was problematic for any judge to decide a case based on the understanding of a woman as being the husband's property, saying that one does not simply lose their right to equality when they become a wife. She underscored that the judgment ought to be reversed."In fact, in common law, a woman loses her legal personality. Her identity is merged with that of the husband. How does this square with a Constitution that recognises each one of us as citizens? You cannot say you lose your right to equality when you become a wife.".However, Jaising went on to say that the women's movement and progressive jurists in the country, had made a definite impact on the judiciary becoming more gender sensitive. Although she emphasised that there was much to be done, she maintained that there was a sliver of hope"An idea slowly seeps into an institution which is otherwise male dominated, and with that domination comes chauvinism and misogyny. As I said, its like little drops which do emerge from judgments where we can say there is hope.".On the first sexual harassment case in India. The Rupan Deol Bajaj case was very significant, said Jaising sharing that she was delighted to represent the petitioner. Elaborating on her motivation, she said she wished to to demonstrate to the court that what Bajaj experienced in the form of sexual harassment was not minimal harm, and that bodily autonomy had to be respected."What was significant about the case was that most people would have ignored the incident and passed it off, but what she told me was that she since she was a woman in authority- if she had tolerated this, there would hardly be any doubt that all the men working under her would have thought she was fair game", the senior counsel recalled. .On Senior DesignationsSpeaking about senior designations in the legal profession, Jaising stressed that she filed the petition in the supreme court with the intent to change the 'dynasty' nature of the legal profession. "The legal profession is also very hierarchical and similarly, the judiciary and the profession has become a hereditary profession. People talk about dynasty politics but there is also dynasty in the legal profession and this something that I have wanted to resist all my life."While she said she was happy with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, it was her belief that the journey to democratise the bar had just begun. "What has this profession done to encourage those who do not come from privilege? For first-generation lawyers? People belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other disadvantaged communities?", she asked. .On Lawyer's CollectiveSpeaking to the investigation initiated against Lawyers Collective, Jaising said that though the organisation is facing an extreme form of victimisation from persecuting agencies, their work goes on. "I am proud to say that the work of the lawyer's collective goes on. It doesn't stop and we have no intention of giving up on the work regardless of what happens to me or to other members of the Lawyer's collective", she said. .On pendency of cases Speaking to the administration of justice and the pendency of cases, Jaising was of the opinion that the quality as well as quantity in a judge's work was missing since enough attention was not being paid to the lower rungs of the judiciary."It's not enough to say that the cause of pendency is not enough judges. The point is, the judges that you have- are they working in the way that they're supposed to work? The quality and quantity of work is missing.".[Watch full interview here]