Not Much Has Changed on the Ground Since 16/12 : Ravi Kant

With a view to getting an understanding of what has changed on the ground since 16/12, CHRI spoke to Mr. Ravi Kant, an advocate in the Supreme Court of India, and President of National Network of Lawyers for Rights and Justice. He heads the NGO Shakti Vahini which works to combat human trafficking and slavery. Mr Ravi Kant also imparts training and lectures on human rights, human trafficking, child rights and violence against women. He regularly visits various Police Academies across India for training police officials.

Interview by Zoya Rasul

Have you observed any change in the attitudes of the police towards gender crimes since the Delhi gangrape last year?

The protests in Delhi following 16/12 received wide coverage in the media and the angry public came out on the streets. A year after that the only thing that has changed is that now the police is well aware that cases of rape and sexual assault are receiving wider coverage in the media and that they need to be alert while dealing with them. But if you look at changes on the ground, with regards to their everyday functioning, then I don’t think any major transformation has happened.

Why has that failed to happen?

Making laws to prevent something is only the first step. But the real significance lies in implementation of the law. While you are changing laws as per the need of the time, people on ground who work with these laws remain the same. Police force at operational level is the same people who used to be there. There is a need to change the mindset of police personnel without which the implementation of these reforms or court directives will remain ineffective.

Delhi being the Capital remains the epicenter of the media attention, but the situation is even worse in other states. Rape cases happen at an endemic scale. But our police machinery does not have the core competency to deal with the sensitive cases of sexual assault. 

Around 70% of police force constitutes ‘lathi people’. That implies Police is basically a law enforcement entity. Its expertise lies in security issues and they are trained majorly in that domain and hence they fail to understand the nitty-gritty of these very sensitive cases of rape and sexual assault. If a survivor walks in to register a complaint, the first supposition held by the Police is that either the woman is at fault or the complaint is motivated. 

Have Court directives on this brought any changes?

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam has said that it is mandatory for the police to register an FIR if a complainant approaches it for the registration of a cognisable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. This has made the registration of FIR easier but is that enough for cases of such serious nature? 

The most critical aspect is the investigation into the case which is often so flawed that it leads to huge number of cases in which the accused gets acquitted. 

It is important to work on the competency of investigating officers especially those dealing with cases of sexual assault. These are sensitive issues to which there is much stigma attached. The survivor is usually under unimaginable trauma and only a cautious examination can piece together a good case for trial. They should undertake scientific investigation rather than hushing up the issue. There are many cases where the victim is unaware of her documented statement under section 161 as the investigating officer does it on his own. The survivor is not in the loop and they are not made to realize the importance these statements carry once the trial starts. It leads to irregularities in the statement, thereby making the case weak and resulting in acquittal of the accused. 

To underline it again, the importance of changing the mindset of the police personnel is paramount; any level of sensitization would be effective only for a mind that believes in it.

Please comment on the high acquittal rates in rape cases

A study of crime statistics released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) shows a steady rise in incidence of rape over the last three years, with 24,923 cases in 2012, up from 24,206 (2011) and 22,172 (2010). However, conviction rates in rapes headed southwards during the same period, down to 24.2% in 2012 from 26.4% in 2011.

High acquittal rate is an area of deep concern and raises alarming questions. In a huge number of cases the victim turns hostile and retracts her statement.  In majority of these cases it is either the victims are pressurized and threatened or are paid money to change their version. Also, not every rape survivor can afford to hire a personal lawyer. People coming from lower strata rely on the public prosecutor to fight for justice on their behalf which again amounts to apathetic handling of their cases.

In the course of my work on rescuing victims of human trafficking, I have come across many cases where it takes 1-2 year for the summon to reach the victim after which they have to depose before the court to testify. As soon as the summon is dispatched the powerful traffickers become active and start threatening the victim asking them not to depose before the or to retract the statement.

Are the Rape Crisis Intervention Centres functioning efficiently?

It is unfortunate that government creates bodies for good but leaves them in lurch. Their functionality, accountability and implementation are seldom tracked. There are a plethora of notifications and advisories issued by the High Courts on how to deal with specific cases including those of sexual violence. There are clear directives for every phase of investigation. Delhi Police has also issued a point by point guideline or SOP (standard operating procedure) on how to deal with cases of rapes and sexual assault. 

But how many of these directives are followed is commonly known to us. Similar is the fate of Rape Crisis Intervention Centres. Though they need to function in-sync with the Police machinery and every case reported has to be made known to RCIC, but it is not done as that would create hurdles for them in hushing up the case and will hold them more accountable.