What Justice Verma panel say on death penalty for rape?

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• The recommendations of Justice J.S. Verma Committee was in news, after the clamour of voices seeking the death penalty for the accused of the rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata.

Background

• The Justice J.S. Verma Committee recommendations, which led to the amendment of criminal laws in 2013, was set up after the gang rape of a paramedic student in Delhi in 2012.
• The committee pointed out that seeking the death penalty would be a regressive step in the field of sentencing and reformation.

Recommendations of the committee 

• The Justice Verma Committee provided for increasing the minimum sentence for rape from 7 years to 10 years, with provisions for a sentence of 20 years or even life imprisonment.
  • However, the Committee did not recommend the death penalty for rape
• The committee pointed out that “there is considerable evidence that the deterrent effect of the death penalty on serious crimes is actually a myth. 
• According to the Working Group on Human Rights, the murder rate has declined consistently in India over the last 20 years despite the slowdown in the execution of death sentences since 1980.”

Stance of Union Cabinet

• The Union Cabinet did not take the recommendation on the death penalty when it cleared an ordinance on sexual assault in 2013, and signed the criminal amendments into law.
• Key amendments were brought in to provide the death penalty for rape that led to death of the victim or reduced her to a persistent vegetative state (Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code) and anyone found guilty of rape more than once (Section 376E). 
• In 2018, further changes introduced death as the maximum punishment for every participant in a gang rape when the victim is less than 12 years old (Section 376DB), and life-long imprisonment if the victim is less than 16 (Section 376DA). 
• Under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, punishment for rape is laid down in several Sections including 64, 65 and 70(2), which notes the punishment for gang rape of a woman under the age of 18 is the death penalty.

Stance of Verma Committee on marital rape

• The Verma Committee recommended that the exception to marital rape be removed, pointing out that “a marital or other relationship between the perpetrator or victim is not a valid defence against the crimes of rape or sexual violation.” 
• Concurring with the judgment of the European Commission of Human Rights, the Committee endorsed the conclusion that a rapist remains a rapist regardless of his relationship with the victim. 
• However the Union government did not go by this recommendation and refused to criminalise marital rape. 

Concluding remarks

• The Verma Committee pointed out that the ethos of empowerment of women does not limit itself to political equality, but also extends, in equal terms, to social, educational, and economic equality. 
• For true empowerment of women it is necessary that law, as well as public policy, must be capable of engaging substantially with women’s rights, opportunities, acquisition of skills, the ability to generate self-confidence and insist on total equality in relationships, both with society and the state.

Source: TH

What Justice Verma panel say on death penalty for rape?

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• The recommendations of Justice J.S. Verma Committee was in news, after the clamour of voices seeking the death penalty for the accused of the rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata.

Background

• The Justice J.S. Verma Committee recommendations, which led to the amendment of criminal laws in 2013, was set up after the gang rape of a paramedic student in Delhi in 2012.
• The committee pointed out that seeking the death penalty would be a regressive step in the field of sentencing and reformation.

Recommendations of the committee 

• The Justice Verma Committee provided for increasing the minimum sentence for rape from 7 years to 10 years, with provisions for a sentence of 20 years or even life imprisonment.
  • However, the Committee did not recommend the death penalty for rape
• The committee pointed out that “there is considerable evidence that the deterrent effect of the death penalty on serious crimes is actually a myth. 
• According to the Working Group on Human Rights, the murder rate has declined consistently in India over the last 20 years despite the slowdown in the execution of death sentences since 1980.”

Stance of Union Cabinet

• The Union Cabinet did not take the recommendation on the death penalty when it cleared an ordinance on sexual assault in 2013, and signed the criminal amendments into law.
• Key amendments were brought in to provide the death penalty for rape that led to death of the victim or reduced her to a persistent vegetative state (Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code) and anyone found guilty of rape more than once (Section 376E). 
• In 2018, further changes introduced death as the maximum punishment for every participant in a gang rape when the victim is less than 12 years old (Section 376DB), and life-long imprisonment if the victim is less than 16 (Section 376DA). 
• Under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, punishment for rape is laid down in several Sections including 64, 65 and 70(2), which notes the punishment for gang rape of a woman under the age of 18 is the death penalty.

Stance of Verma Committee on marital rape

• The Verma Committee recommended that the exception to marital rape be removed, pointing out that “a marital or other relationship between the perpetrator or victim is not a valid defence against the crimes of rape or sexual violation.” 
• Concurring with the judgment of the European Commission of Human Rights, the Committee endorsed the conclusion that a rapist remains a rapist regardless of his relationship with the victim. 
• However the Union government did not go by this recommendation and refused to criminalise marital rape. 

Concluding remarks

• The Verma Committee pointed out that the ethos of empowerment of women does not limit itself to political equality, but also extends, in equal terms, to social, educational, and economic equality. 
• For true empowerment of women it is necessary that law, as well as public policy, must be capable of engaging substantially with women’s rights, opportunities, acquisition of skills, the ability to generate self-confidence and insist on total equality in relationships, both with society and the state.

Source: TH

China-Philippines Clash over South China Dispute

Syllabus: GS2/ IR

In Context

• The Philippine accused China of carrying out “repeated aggressive, unprofessional and illegal” actions in the South China Sea.

Background

• The South China Sea, located south of China, is bordered by Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
• The tensions between China and other nations have escalated in recent years, largely due to China’s rise as a global power.
• The South China Sea is of immense strategic importance, and China seeks to control it to assert dominance in the region.

China’s Claims and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’

• China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea are marked by the “nine-dash line,” which was first issued in 1947.
• This line encompasses nearly 90% of the South China Sea, including waters and islands.
• China argues that its claims are based on “historical maritime rights,” though it has not provided clear coordinates for the line.
• To reinforce its claims, China has engaged in activities such as constructing artificial islands, military installations, and ports, particularly in the Paracel and Spratly Islands.

International Response

• China’s claims have been contested by other countries, leading to heightened tensions. 
• The United States, seeking to protect its own interests and support regional allies, has increased its military presence and aid to countries opposing China’s claims.
• In 2016, the Philippines brought the dispute to an international tribunal, which largely rejected China’s nine-dash line but China rejected the verdict.

Importance of the South China Sea

• Strategic Importance: It is one of the most strategically and economically important waterways in the world, extending from the Strait of Malacca in the southwest, to the Strait of Taiwan in the northeast.
  • It is a crucial maritime gateway and junction for shipping between the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
• Natural Resources: The sea contains an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
• Fishing Grounds: It is home to rich fishing grounds, vital for the livelihoods of millions in the region.
• Trade Route: The sea is a crucial maritime trade route, with over 21% of global trade, amounting to $3.37 trillion, passing through it in 2016.

India and South China Sea

• India’s stance on the South China Sea has seen a significant shift in recent years, reflecting its broader strategic and economic aspirations on the global stage.
• India has been increasing cooperation, defence as well as economic, with these countries to take its resistance to maritime Chinese influence to China’s own backyard.

Way Ahead

• The disputes in the South China Sea require a political framework, which can only be created through dialogue.
• Leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should try to find a political solution through ‘quiet diplomacy’.
  • The potential for resolving this issue through legal methods is very low.

Source: IE

Supreme Court of India on SC/ST Act, 1989

Syllabus: GS2/Vulnerable Section of Society

Context

• Recently, the Supreme Court held in a judgement that not all insults and intimidatory comments aimed at a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person would be an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

Background of SC / ST Act

• The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was initially passed in Parliament to eradicate inherent discriminatory attitudes against the SCs and STs.
• It was renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act in 1976.
• Later, owing to the ineffectiveness of the above acts, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came into existence.

• According to the SC/ST Act, the protection is provided from social disabilities such as denial of access to certain places and to use a customary passage, personal atrocities like forceful drinking or eating of inedible food, sexual exploitation, injury, etc, and atrocities affecting properties, malicious prosecution, political disabilities, and economic exploitation.
• The SC/ST Act is in place to deliver justice to the marginalised through proactive efforts, giving them a life of dignity, self-esteem, and a life without fear, violence, or suppression from the dominant castes.

Provisions of Criminal Law

• Atrocities can be committed only by non-SCs and non-STs on members of the SC or ST communities.
  • Crimes among or between SCs and STs do not come under the purview of this Act.
• Cancellation of arms licences in the areas identified where an atrocity may take or has taken place and grant arms licences to the SCs and STs.

Amendment

• The Act was amended in 2015 to make it more effective and to provide greater justice and enhanced redressal to injustice suffered by the atrocity victims.
• It includes new offences, expanded scope of presumptions, institutional strengthening, and establishment of Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts to exclusively try offences under the SC/ST Act to enable expeditious disposal of cases.

Recent Observation of Supreme Court

• Intent Matters: The court emphasised that the intention behind the insult or intimidation is crucial. Mere knowledge that the victim belongs to an SC/ST community is insufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.
  • Instead, the insult must be intentionally directed at the victim because of their caste identity.
• Caste-Based Humiliation: To trigger the Act, the ‘humiliation’ inflicted by the aggressor must be intricately associated with the victim’s caste identity.
  • In other words, it’s not every intentional insult that results in caste-based humiliation. The court clarified that this applies only in cases where the insult reinforces historically entrenched ideas, such as untouchability or notions of caste superiority.
• The court recognised that insults or intimidation can occur without reference to caste. If the insult is not specifically tied to the victim’s SC/ST status, it does not fall under the purview of the Act.
• Anticipatory Bail: It cannot be denied under Section 18 of the Act unless a prima facie case under the Act is established against the accused. It ensures that individuals are not unfairly deprived of their right to seek anticipatory bail.

Source: IE

Supreme Court of India on SC/ST Act, 1989

Syllabus: GS2/Vulnerable Section of Society

Context

• Recently, the Supreme Court held in a judgement that not all insults and intimidatory comments aimed at a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person would be an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

Background of SC / ST Act

• The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was initially passed in Parliament to eradicate inherent discriminatory attitudes against the SCs and STs.
• It was renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act in 1976.
• Later, owing to the ineffectiveness of the above acts, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came into existence.

• According to the SC/ST Act, the protection is provided from social disabilities such as denial of access to certain places and to use a customary passage, personal atrocities like forceful drinking or eating of inedible food, sexual exploitation, injury, etc, and atrocities affecting properties, malicious prosecution, political disabilities, and economic exploitation.
• The SC/ST Act is in place to deliver justice to the marginalised through proactive efforts, giving them a life of dignity, self-esteem, and a life without fear, violence, or suppression from the dominant castes.

Provisions of Criminal Law

• Atrocities can be committed only by non-SCs and non-STs on members of the SC or ST communities.
  • Crimes among or between SCs and STs do not come under the purview of this Act.
• Cancellation of arms licences in the areas identified where an atrocity may take or has taken place and grant arms licences to the SCs and STs.

Amendment

• The Act was amended in 2015 to make it more effective and to provide greater justice and enhanced redressal to injustice suffered by the atrocity victims.
• It includes new offences, expanded scope of presumptions, institutional strengthening, and establishment of Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts to exclusively try offences under the SC/ST Act to enable expeditious disposal of cases.

Recent Observation of Supreme Court

• Intent Matters: The court emphasised that the intention behind the insult or intimidation is crucial. Mere knowledge that the victim belongs to an SC/ST community is insufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.
  • Instead, the insult must be intentionally directed at the victim because of their caste identity.
• Caste-Based Humiliation: To trigger the Act, the ‘humiliation’ inflicted by the aggressor must be intricately associated with the victim’s caste identity.
  • In other words, it’s not every intentional insult that results in caste-based humiliation. The court clarified that this applies only in cases where the insult reinforces historically entrenched ideas, such as untouchability or notions of caste superiority.
• The court recognised that insults or intimidation can occur without reference to caste. If the insult is not specifically tied to the victim’s SC/ST status, it does not fall under the purview of the Act.
• Anticipatory Bail: It cannot be denied under Section 18 of the Act unless a prima facie case under the Act is established against the accused. It ensures that individuals are not unfairly deprived of their right to seek anticipatory bail.