It is “time to take stock” if the Nirbhaya case is the best the country's law enforcement and judiciary could do to bring the guilty to justice for crimes committed against women, the Supreme Court said in an order on Wednesday.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Sharad A. Bobde said there was no let-down in the atrocities against women. The latest data from National Crime Records Bureau shows 32,559 rape cases were registered in 2017 alone.
The order was passed even as the court refused to review its May 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty awarded to one of the four condemned convicts, Akshay Singh, in the Nirbhaya case.
In the 18-page order, the court said the rising crime graph was despite sweeping amendments made to criminal law, especially anti-rape laws, in 2013 and 2018. “Delay in recent times has created agitation, anxiety and unrest in the minds of the people,” it acknowledged.
“The Nirbhaya case is not an isolated case where it has taken so long to reach finality. In fact, it is said that it has been one of the cases where agencies have acted swiftly taking into account the public outrage... We are, therefore, of the view that it is necessary to take stock of the implementation of provisions of criminal law, including amendments relating to rape cases and other sexual offences,” the Bench, also comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, observed.
The court directed the Supreme Court Secretary General to call for information from the Chief Secretaries, police chiefs of all States on the status of affairs regarding investigation, prosecution, medico-forensic agencies, rehabilitation and legal aid regarding cases of rape and other sexual offences.
The court said it was necessary to get a holistic view to make the criminal justice system responsive. The court listed the case for February 7, 2020.
A question raised by the court is whether the 60-day deadline each for investigation and trial is being adhered to. It wanted to know whether women judges preside over trials concerning crimes committed against women. It also wanted to know whether such cases were being tried in special courts exclusively designated for the purpose.
Naming each amendment brought in 2013 and 2018, the court asked whether women officers recorded the information from victims and if there was any standard operating protocol for responding to rape.
The court also sought to know if any private or public hosiptals have declined to treat rape survivors free of cost and, if any, cases have been registered in this regard.
The court has even gone to the extent of asking whether the amendment made in 2013 banning the recording of evidence about the character of the victim or her “past sexual experiences” is being followed.
