<p>The Supreme Court has done the right thing in asserting the correct position of law and justice by rejecting any scope for mediation or reconciliation between the victim and the culprit in rape cases. It is not the first time the court has made this clear but hopefully this will be the last one. It rejected the lenient view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a rape case where there was reported to be a compromise with the accused. The court’s view is also relevant in the context of the recent order of a judge of the Madras High Court which suggested to a woman who was raped as a minor and has a child born out of it, to mediate with the rapist. The judge granted bail to the rapist to reach a compromise. He did not even seek the woman’s consent for it and she rightly rejected any settlement by way of marriage with the rapist. <br /><br /></p>.<p>It is unfortunate that even judges of high courts hold such views and pass orders which flout the letter and spirit of the law and violate the rights of victims of serious crimes like rape. These are also gross and insensitive and aggravate the trauma of the victims. Even a former chief justice of India had once proposed that rape charges could be dropped if the victim agrees to marry the accused. The Supreme Court has termed such a liberal approach as a ‘spectacular error’ and has ruled out any compromise in any circumstances in the case of a rape or attempt to rape. Rape is a violation of the body, mind and dignity of a woman. It is not just a crime against a person but against society too. No individual, not even the victim, has the right or power to soft-pedal the crime after the law has taken over the matter. It is a non-compoundable offence that cannot be quashed except by the laid down processes of the law.<br /><br />The idea of mediation will work against the interests of the victim in many ways. The memory of a violent rape will run through the marriage and can only spoil it. The rapist, who proposes marriage to get off the legal hook, can neglect the woman and even go in for separation. The victims and their families may be pressured in various ways even by the community, which is still patriarchal, to accept a compromise. The correct judicial view, expressed by the apex court, is the just and most humane view on the crime of rape and punishment for it. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has done the right thing in asserting the correct position of law and justice by rejecting any scope for mediation or reconciliation between the victim and the culprit in rape cases. It is not the first time the court has made this clear but hopefully this will be the last one. It rejected the lenient view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a rape case where there was reported to be a compromise with the accused. The court’s view is also relevant in the context of the recent order of a judge of the Madras High Court which suggested to a woman who was raped as a minor and has a child born out of it, to mediate with the rapist. The judge granted bail to the rapist to reach a compromise. He did not even seek the woman’s consent for it and she rightly rejected any settlement by way of marriage with the rapist. <br /><br /></p>.<p>It is unfortunate that even judges of high courts hold such views and pass orders which flout the letter and spirit of the law and violate the rights of victims of serious crimes like rape. These are also gross and insensitive and aggravate the trauma of the victims. Even a former chief justice of India had once proposed that rape charges could be dropped if the victim agrees to marry the accused. The Supreme Court has termed such a liberal approach as a ‘spectacular error’ and has ruled out any compromise in any circumstances in the case of a rape or attempt to rape. Rape is a violation of the body, mind and dignity of a woman. It is not just a crime against a person but against society too. No individual, not even the victim, has the right or power to soft-pedal the crime after the law has taken over the matter. It is a non-compoundable offence that cannot be quashed except by the laid down processes of the law.<br /><br />The idea of mediation will work against the interests of the victim in many ways. The memory of a violent rape will run through the marriage and can only spoil it. The rapist, who proposes marriage to get off the legal hook, can neglect the woman and even go in for separation. The victims and their families may be pressured in various ways even by the community, which is still patriarchal, to accept a compromise. The correct judicial view, expressed by the apex court, is the just and most humane view on the crime of rape and punishment for it. </p>
