Imperfect victim and perfect accused: Judicial stereotypes in Civic Chandran versus State of Kerala

When social and cultural norms routinely transform into extra-legal standards of scrutiny, and institutional mechanisms morph into hetero-patriarchal modes of inquiry, constitutional norms of equality and dignity are shredded.

—-

LEGAL rules try to make sense out of messy realities, by curving tropes of 'reasonableness' in various formulations of 'reasonable man', 'reasonable woman' and reasonable expectations, to borrow from human rights activist Usha Ramanathan's neat categorization of women's laws in her pioneering work in the 1990s. The reasonable victim in law is the perfect victim — she is usually dead or bears visible marks of injury on her body; she does not smoke, drink or have male friends, and she does not show any skin. She barely exists.

Judging a woman based on her clothing and making assumptions on such a basis is a tale as old as time. From laws enforcing women's clothing in ancient Rome to World War II's domestic production regulations in the U.S.A. impacting the length of women's skirts, to the recent instance of a Kerala sessions court order granting bail to writer and activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case remarking on the complainant's dress, control of women's sartorial choice has a long history. However, when social and cultural norms routinely transform into extra-legal standards of scrutiny, and institutional mechanisms morph into hetero-patriarchal modes of inquiry, constitutional norms of equality and dignity are shredded.