Devisha Dayal, OP Jindal Global University
Thesis:
Does the Indian Supreme Court expect a young girl aged 14 to 16 to effectively raise an alert for aid when detained inside a police station by two cops? Does the lack of yells warrant a quick conclusion of consenting intercourse? May Ganpat's sexual practises offer him the benefit of the doubt that he "raped" Mathura, or can Mathura's sexual habits cause the court to dismiss rape entirely? Consent entails submission, but is the reverse always true? Is the taboo against premarital sex so strong that it allows the judiciary to pass a verdict against the victim? Is there no regard for the victim's socioeconomic condition, lack of awareness of legal rights, age, lack of access to legal assistance, and the terror complex that haunts the impoverished and exploited in Indian police stations?
“They are all innocent until proven guilty. But not me. I am a liar until I am proven honest.” -Louise O’Neill
The mainstream understanding of the relationship between law and morality is that the law exists to promote morality, but in a case like this, with its cold-blooded legalism, extinguishes the hopes of millions of Mathuras in the Indian countryside for the preservation of their human rights. Mathura's ordeal was not only humiliating, but also dehumanising. It demonstrated how, even after speaking out against injustice, women in our nation are frequently falsely accused or subjected to biased “justice”.
