Why a sexual offender shouldn’t be named until he's legally shamed

by S Murlidharan  Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment law prohibits publication of the name of the woman alleging sexual harassment. That this law is incomplete and inadequate insofar as punishment for flouting this prohibition need not detain us for now. Suffice it to point out that the offender would be punished in accordance with the service rules. Which then begs the question what if the woman is named by a person not working in the establishment, like in-the-dock Meenakshi Lekhi of the BJP. Be that as it may, the subject of this article is about men alleged to be lechers, but whose act(s) of lechery is immediately or ultimately found frivolous or malicious or contrived. Section 14 of the Sexual Harassment law says such a woman would be dealt with in accordance with the service rules of the establishment. But this is neither here nor there, and as incomplete and inadequate as the punishment regime for those making public the name of the woman who has allegedly been sexually harassed, more so in cases where the woman victim is not an employee of the establishment. Service rules obviously cannot be invoked against those not working in an establishment. Without having the slightest intention of prejudging the issue, let us examine the case of Justice AK Ganguly whose name is out in the open for everyone to ridicule and express disgust at. It is the intern’s word against his. Worse, if the complaint assumes the hues of rape then her version would overrule everything else peremptorily in terms of the amendments carried out to the Evidence Act in the course of the recent amendments to the Indian Penal Code on rape and stalking. Justice Ganguly ultimately could be acquitted either by the internal committee of the Supreme Court hurriedly put in place or by the normal law of the land, but it would be too late by then. His reputation and honour would have been shattered beyond retrieval or redemption. [caption id=“attachment_1262239” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Should we have more protections for the perpetrator when it comes to cases of sexual assault? PTI[/caption] One may say this is the plight of all those who are ultimately acquitted under the due process of our arduously slow and grinding justice administration in this country. A man arrested in his prime for a crime, which it turns out he did not commit, loses everything including the full opportunity to earn and enjoy during the period he was incarcerated. What is more galling is he has been unfairly deprived of togetherness with his family and friends. Our justice system admittedly does not deal with this aspect and no serious attempt has been made to make the state responsible for compensating a person so shabbily and cavalierly treated unlike in the US, where even the State is responsible for compensation if a person has been wrongly targeted. So why should one’s heart go out especially to people like Justice Ganguly when all those unfairly targeted are in the same boat could be the philosophical refrain. Well, the answer is honour is as important to a man as to a woman. One who loses his property or opportunity to earn or enjoy his life is not done in as much as the one whose reputation has been tarnished, either through pique, misunderstanding or wantonness. Justice Ganguly already must be squirming uncomfortably before his family and friends. There is nothing more terribly painful than the prospect of having to face one’s children and grandchildren who hitherto have looked you upon as a role model, but are now told that you are guilty of sexual misconduct. A politician might wear a CBI’s clean chit as a badge of honour and vindication of his probity, and might therefore even contrive a CBI raid for alleged disproportionate assets. But to bear the stigma of sexual misconduct could be too depressing, driving even a thick-skinned politician insane and think of suicide. The domestic violence law and the proposed law mandating equal share of property to a divorced woman from husband are both perceived to be biased and predisposed against men folk but this injustice pales before the law on sexual harassment which is blithe about the honour of a man while being rightly sensitive about the honour of a woman. Punish a sexual offender severely by all means but not before he has had a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Till then his name must be kept secret. Cynics might turn around and say in this day and age nothing can possibly remain a secret. There are peeping toms galore who take voyeuristic and sadistic delight in others’ discomfiture. Enquiries are carried out in full public glare, willy-nilly. Enquiry committees and courts cannot be made to sit in ungodly hours. Nevertheless one must not be named unless he is legally shamed, at least as to provide for parity between the sexually harassed woman and her alleged male tormentor. Naresh Agarwal of Samajwadi Party was pilloried for saying that male employers and male-dominated establishments would fight shy of employing females in the dawning realization that it is better to nip a potential problem in its bud. What he said might not have been politically correct but that well could be the denouement if the following three amendments are not carried out to the law: -  The alleged male tormentor’s name should not be disclosed like the female victim’s. - The recently crafted law of evidence on rape that the alleged rape victim’s word is unassailable and unquestionable must be tempered so as to allow rebuttal. - Penalty for frivolous or malicious or wantonly contrived complaints of sexual harassment must be much more than a mere slap on the wrist.