In a resolute declaration, the Delhi High Court has emphasized that gender neutrality stands as a fundamental characteristic of a fair justice delivery system. This assertion came as the court denied the anticipatory bail plea of a woman accused of severely injuring her husband.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma presided over the case, where it was alleged that the accused inflicted life-threatening injuries on her spouse by pouring boiling water mixed with chili powder over him. The court firmly stated, “The hallmark of a fair and just justice delivery system is to remain gender-neutral in adjudicating cases of such nature. In cases where a woman causes such injuries, a special class cannot be created for her.”
Highlighting the critical nature of the injuries involved, the court maintained that crimes leading to grievous bodily harm should be handled with utmost seriousness, irrespective of the gender of the perpetrator. It stressed that the life and dignity of every individual are paramount and must be protected equally under the law.
The judgement also addressed the prevailing stereotypes that often see men as improbable victims in domestic scenarios. The court noted that these stereotypes not only undermine the experiences of male victims but also perpetuate a biased narrative that men cannot be subjected to domestic violence.
“Men who are victims of violence at the hands of their wives face unique challenges, including societal disbelief and the stigma of being perceived as weak or less masculine. Such stereotypes perpetuate the erroneous belief that men cannot suffer violence in domestic relationships,” the court explained.
In its judgement dated January 22, the court rejected the accused woman’s plea for leniency based on her gender. The court reasoned that offering leniency to one gender over the other in cases involving serious bodily injuries would undermine the foundational principles of justice.
The court pondered a scenario where the roles were reversed, questioning if leniency would be advocated if the victim were a woman under similar circumstances. It remarked, “This court wonders that if the roles were reversed, would arguments for mercy be justifiable? The answer is clear, and biases, whether hidden or apparent, cannot guide judicial decisions.”
