The problem is with making rape an issue of honour, while it is an issue of consent: Vrinda Grover

Interview with Lawyer and women's rights activist

Last week, a Madras High Court judge granted bail to a rape accused so that he can meet the victim for a possible mediation. Soon after, the Supreme Court termed the concept of mediation in a sexual offence a "spectacular error". "There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against the woman's honour which matters the most," said a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra. Lawyer and women's rights activist Vrinda Grover talks to Ritika Bhatia about the judgments

Where does the law stand on the Madras High court ruling?

The law does not allow for mediation in sexual offences. Certain crimes can be compounded between parties, that too only when both parties agree to it. A crime such as rape cannot be compounded; it is totally untenable in the law itself. In the Madras High Court ruling, the surprising fact is that nobody even asked for mediation, the rapist had only applied for bail.

What message do the sexual offenders get?

It is not about what message it sends to rapists but to all of society - it brings back the living corpse syndrome. The whole argument that rape is worse than death, something we [lawyers and activists] have made huge efforts to move away from.

It is an issue of self-determination and consent. It is the honour of the man that is destroyed when he performs a crime, not of the woman. We have to move away from the paradigm of honour. As long as the honour paradigm remains, people will keep trying to employ mediation compromise either explicitly or implicitly.

How do the women react to such attempts at mediation?

In the Madras High Court case, the woman herself has spoken out and told the media that there is no way she would consider any kind of "mediation". It shows the woman wasn't even consulted before the idea of "mediation" was thrust upon her. Another important point this has brought up is in the context of marital rape, and the nascent debate that exists around it in the country today.

I highly doubt a judiciary that prefers compromise in rape cases would believe that wives too have a right to sexual autonomy and bodily integrity.

The Supreme Court's comments, while welcomed by many quarters, have also elicited their own set of problems.

The Supreme Court's comments make crystal clear that no compromise is permitted under the law or the Constitution. Despite the correct decision, I have a lot of problems with the legal reasoning which continues to rotate around the nucleus of honour.

I think there needs to be a very urgent dialogue between superior judiciary and feminist lawyers and women's rights activists, to bridge this gap in understanding.