On Thursday, the Kerala High Court stated that while crimes against women are continuing to rise, society’s patriarchal perspective is changing.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that there is a shift in men’s attitudes, particularly when it comes to their attitudes about crimes against women.
“Crime against women are certainly increasing. We have always been looking at such cases with a patriarchal society. But it is changing and it is time to change also. Even men’s attitude is changing. Now, women are no longer very worried about speaking in public about their sexual escapades. Every other day we find women saying that. They have become empowered. They are strong about such things.”
Justice Thomas
The court was hearing actor-producer Vijay Babu’s anticipatory bail application in a rape case filed against him after an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Babu said in his appeal, filed through Advocate S Rajeev, that the complaint against him was nothing more than an attempt to blackmail him.
He also said that the police are being led by the intensive scrutiny and widespread theories around the case that have been widely reported in the media.
The de-facto complainant’s lawyer, R Rajesh, presented his reasons in opposition to the anticipatory bail request. Rajesh emphasised the disparities in power between Babu and the complainant, a new actress, in the film industry, and spoke of the complainant’s subordination as a result of this imbalance.
He further mentioned that the complainant, as a young unmarried woman, had been subjected to social ostracism and victimisation on social media and elsewhere.
Rajesh emphasised that the Court should consider the cumulative consequences of these variables through an intersectional lens, and that the evidence presented by the complainant must be viewed without bias, especially because Babu confirmed to the police that he had sexual intercourse with her.
The complaint against Babu was filed after a debutante-actress came up with #MeToo allegations that he sexually exploited her while considering her for acting opportunities.
Following the filing of a first information report (FIR), Babu went on Facebook Live to deny all claims levelled against him and, more crucially, to divulge the survivor’s name while claiming to be aware of the legal consequences. The Indian Penal Code’s Section 228A (disclosure of the identify of the victim in certain cases) was then used to file a separate FIR against him (IPC).
The Court recently dismissed the anticipatory bail request in this case, stating that the accused offence is bailable. On June 17, the topic will be taken up for discussion. Babu’s detention protection has been extended until then.