The three-member team led by former chief justice of India JS Verma was set
up by the government after the brutal gang-rape of a 23-year-old paramedical
student on a bus in Delhi last month.
The attack outraged the country and triggered protests demanding tougher laws
to punish rapists.
The committee received 80,000 suggestions from various women's groups,
jurists and other forums. Justice Verma committee also dealt with marital rape.
Here are some of the highlights of the Verma Committee Report
Report Of The Committee On Amendments To Criminal Law by
'Shocked to See Home Secretary Praise Police Commissioner'
"The Commissioner of Police was given a pat on his back by no less than a person holding the post of Home Secretary. I was shocked to see that,"
Justice Verma told a press conference after submitting the report on measures to improve laws dealing with sexual offences against women.
He said the least he would have done was to seek an apology for the failure of the duty to protect citizens and "instead of that (what did we see)".
Home Secretary R K Singh faced the ire of the Justice J S Verma committee which said he should have sought an apology from the Delhi Police for failing to protect citizens instead of praising the force in the aftermath of the gangrape of a young girl.
Singh got the rap for his praise of Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar after the force arrested six persons in connection with the
Commenting on the protests, Verma complimented the youth for their mature response. "Youth has taught us what we, the older generation, were not aware of. I was struck by the peaceful manner in which the protests were carried out...The youth rose to the occasion," he said.
However, the panel was critical of the police response to the protests after the incident. "The lathicharge on peaceful demonstrators after the December 16 gangrape has scarred the Indian democracy," it said.
The panel also noted the "peculiarity" of city government not having any control over Delhi Police, which reports to Union Home Ministry.
This is the reason given publicly by Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit for the absence of responsibility of her government, it said.
"This ambiguity must be removed forthwith so that there is no divided responsibility in Delhi in respect of maintenance of law and order. Such a step is also essential to maintain accountability," it said.
The panel was of the view that the "undisputed facts" related to the incident "unmistakably" disclose the failure of many public functionaries for traffic regulation, maintenance of law and
order and more importantly, "their low and skewed priority" in dealing with complaints of sexual assault.
The Panel said that disputes relating to the jurisdiction of the police over the area of the crime are often a cause of delay in initiating the process of taking cognisance of the crime and providing medical aid to the victim.
'MPs With Criminal Charges Should Quit Voluntarily'
Justice J S Verma Committee asked MPs and MLAs having heinous cases pending against them to voluntarily quit their seats as a mark of respect to Parliament, legislatures and the Constitution.
In its recommendations, the panel dealt with reforms in respect of political establishment and pitched for amendments in Representation of People Act, 1951 to deal with criminalisation of politics.
"We have suggested amendments to Section 33A requiring the making of a declaration about the pendency of any criminal case, whether cognisance has been taken of it. A certificate from the Registrar of the High Court should be necessary for the validity of the nomination.
"We also suggest that, in the event cognisance has been taken by a magistrate of an offence...The candidate ought to be disqualified from participating in the electoral process," it said.
Stiffer Punishment to Rapists But No Death
The Justice Verma Committee today recommended enhancing punishment of upto 20 years imprisonment for rape and murder and life for gang rape but refrained from suggesting death penalty.
New offences have been created and stiffer punishment has been suggested those committing it like leaving the victim in a vegetative state. The new offences include disrobing a woman, voyeurism, stalking and trafficking.
The present law provides for punishment for rapists of imprisonment ranging from seven years to life.
Justice Verma said that the Committee has not suggested death penalty for rapist because there was overwhelming suggestions from the women organisations against it, a point that was received with thunderous applause from activists at the media interaction.
The Committee did not recommend death penalty for rape because it was a "regressive step" and it "may not have a deterrent effect".
"We have not recommended death penalty as we had overwhelming suggestions against it. The women groups unanimously were against death penalty and that is why we thought that is a strong reason to respect that view particularly in view of the modern trend also," Justice Verma said.
'Castration Is Unconstitutional'
The Verma Committee rejected the suggestion of chemical castration of rapists as it considered handing down such a punishment would violate human rights and that mutilation of the body is not permitted under the Constitution."We note that it would be unconstitutional and inconsistent with basic human rights treaties for the state to expose any citizen without their consent to potentially dangerous medical side effects.""For this reason, we do not recommend mandatory chemical castration of any type as a punishment for sex offenders. For the same reason, the Government of India does not prescribe chemical castration as a family planning method," the 3-member panel said in its report."We are further of the opinion that chemical castration fails to treat the social foundations of rape which is about power and sexually deviant behaviour. We, therefore, hold that mandatory chemical castration as a punishment contradicts human rights standards."We, therefore, reject the possibility of chemical castration as a means of punishment. We must take on record a suggestion from a leading doctor for permanent surgical castration. We think mutilation of the body is not permitted by the Constitution," the committee said.Death is a known form of penalty but mutilation has not been recognised in progressive jurisprudence as prescribed punitive action, the committee said as it recommended further research and study in this matter.
'Need Not Lower Juvenile Age From 18'
The panel is of the opinion that the age of the juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act need not be lowered from the present 18.
There has been strong demand that the age of a juvenile should be brought down to 16 in view of the fact that the minor accused in the Delhi gangrape allegedly behaved in the most brutal way.
Other Changes Suggested
Among the amendments proposed is a change in Section 100 of the IPC dealing with right of private defence which extends to causing death.
Taking note of the brutality committed in the Delhi gang rape incident, the Committee suggested replacement of Section 375 defining rape by defining specific unnatural acts.
Intentional touching will constitute the offence of sexual assault for which punishment will be a maximum of five years rigorous imprisonment or fine or both.
Use of words, gestures which create an unwelcome threat of sexual nature or advance would invite a maximum punishment of one year imprisonment or fine or both.
Committee member Gopal Subramanium said the Juvenile Justice Act has been a total failure and condition of the juvenile homes were pathetic.
"When you read our report you will find we have extracted from the reports of the National Commission for Protection of Children and you will be shocked to see the unimaginable things juveniles have to do there...," he said.
The panel suggested that the Chief Justice of the High Court of every state should device appropriate machinery for administration and supervision of these juvenile homes in consultation with experts in the field.
The Committee also said all marriages in the country -- irrespective of the personal laws under which such marriages are solemnised -- should mandatorily be registered in the presence of a magistrate and the magistrate will ensure that the marriage has been solemnised without any demand for dowry having been made and that the marriage has taken place with the full and free consent of both partners.
The panel suggested medical examination of victims of sexual assault which were prepared on the basis of the best practices advised by global experts in the field of gynaecology and psychology.
For me the challenges of India are mostly - the last mile one, i.e., implementation. So is the case in the value chain to deliver justice where "rape" is one aspect needing urgent attention.
Our police is a colonial force and we want to be free and modern people. On top it is corrupt - except for rare instances of individuals as a whole it is corrupt to the core. What drives the police to do their job or not is where they can collect more moolah and they might just do whatever is needed to get more from sometimes both the accused and the accuser. Then of course is the politicisation of the police force. Essentially in most cases everything but doing the right thing (duty) and doing it professionally (doing it well whatever be the environment) drives them. So every situation is either about how to make moolah or avoid work. Today their investigative and evidence gathering skills are legendary in not quite the way one would want :-) Until something very seriously changes where the aam-admi thinks of police as help rather than an added problem to be avoided until desperate, not much will change in implementation and pursuit of justice.
Then there is a judiciary - where cases just keep piling and dragging on. The poor guy seeking justice is just a nuisance for the system and mincemeat in the chakrayuh of police, lawyers and judges. Then there are the same issues of corruption, politicization, disregard for duty (just the race for power and money) and lack of professionalism (the desire to do a job well because you have signed up for it). Again the aam-admi hardly thinks for getting justice from courts and looks for any other alternative including at times "godfathers". Of course, they file cases with a hope against hope but in reality not expecting much. Of course there are exceptions and in many cases due to the sheet grit, determination and practically making it their lives one point agenda.
"Rule of Law" and "justice" will be hardest change for us as a people to make and the odds are stacked against it because the changes needed are very hard, very fundamental, very deep and against vested interests who are happy with the present situation as it serves their power and wealth.
Until "rule of law" works for the weak, poor and disposessed of our society, it can't work well for anybody (except those at the top of the power and wealth pyramid). This one cannot be solved by compartmentalizing, e.g., make it work for women's issues or rape but for rest continue as business as usual ... fast courts for rape or whatever next becomes the big issue isn't a solution, it is just a temporary band-aid at best and like band-aids left for too long it will also have adverse affects. Our history of course is repleat with band-aids applied all over and many times band-aid over band-aid because we as a collective look to solve something once it is burning and too hot to handle.
Of course making new laws would be relatively speaking the easier thing but it will just be a mirage with the present quality of implementation.
It appears the good Justice Verma .... hasn't really taken on his brethens in the judiciary ... of course for a person like him it is easy to target the most popular punching bag - the political class and the police. Don't get me wrong they are deserving of all the criticism and more but they are part of the problem not the whole problem - ignore the rest and you still don't get a solution - you get mirages and at best band-aids.
Ramesh Ramachandra writes .... "It is only on the day when we see traffic rules being obeyed in India as they are being obeyed in civilised countries that we can rest assured that all other laws are being similarly respected, and that we are a country where law and order is being enforced,and also that the rule of law prevails in India. But that is perhaps asking for the moon."
Yep. The Indian road is actually the best and true mirror of us as a collective people (society, culture, civilization, country - whatever you want to call us). All the good, bad and ugly is on display in full glory and majesty - of course today it seems more of the bad and ugly. But a lot of it comes from very deep long standing cultural issues and our responses as a collective to those. One is the unstable power-powerlessness duality in a deeply (near perfect) heirarchical society (where everyone is more powerful than someone and powerless relative to someone else) which results in a response of extremes - either a very saintly use of power (rare exception) or display/use of whatever power for detrimental purposes (the more common case). This is why the rule of jungle applies of the Indian roads - the bigger vehicle wins - and bus is the king of the road and the driver uses this inherited power from the biggest vehicle to display power even though in society he is one of most powerless. The other is a response to constraints - hording - try to get ahead even a small step by any means necessary and whatever be the overall cost, i.e., hence 2 lanes become 5 and lots of choke points/funnels all over. So yes ..... what you are asking for appears near impossible in any foreseeable future.
everyone knows that congress government failures have led to such situations in country. and because they are the rulers nothing will happen, some cosmetic changes fromreport will be accepted and not that affects government
How come Justice Verma does not talk about all the cases where the Supreme Court and other courts have reduced punishments / sentences for persons who have raped or committed atrocities on women? How come all these judges (including the current CJ) cannot see any of the deficiencies in the judicial system that have lead to a culture of impunity!
Who decided that the Englishman's definition of human rights for ruthless criminals applies in India? The judiciary is legislating through the back door and that is a power the Indian people did not give it. Why should physical castration and even death sentence not considered in cases of gang rapes, acid attacks and rape of minor children (excluding statutory rape) - unless of course one thinks with british sensibilities!
Focus on police performance is good. Rejection of death penalty and rejection of chemical castration are in keeping with the norms in other civilized countries. I think this is a good report. The question is how diligently it will be implemented.
With all (un)due respects to the judiciary, isn't it parliamentarians job to introduce any amendment (even suggestions) to constitutional law? If they are unable or intellectually incapable of bringing together a bill even after such a ghastly incident why are we paying taxes and voting for?
The point being in a represntative democracy the law/ bill/ amendment should reflect society's beliefs through their elected representatives and not how few unelected individuals believe or interpret what society believes.