The session commenced with an introduction by Praxis Coordinator, Pritha Mallick, providing an overview of the Praxis classroom and introducing the speaker, Adv. Audrey D’Mello. As the Director of Majlis Legal Centre, she has extensive experience in women’s and child rights law. With a legal degree from Bombay University and a postgraduate degree in management from NMIMS, she has spent 18 years providing legal and social support to survivors of sexual and domestic violence. She has also trained police officers, prosecutors, and judges on legal frameworks, including the POCSO Act, POSH Act, and PWDV Act.

Adv. D’Mello shared insights into the work of Majlis Legal Centre, an organization that emerged from early feminist movements and focuses on supporting vulnerable victims of violence. She highlighted the broader women’s rights movements in India, stressing the importance of gender equality, affirmative action, and reservations for women to break systemic barriers.

The session began with a case study discussing the Mathura Rape Case, a landmark instance of gender based violence in Maharashtra. In 1972, Mathura, a young tribal girl, was raped by two policemen in custody. The Supreme Court’s subsequent acquittal of the accused led to widespread protests and the eventual amendment of India’s rape laws through The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1983. The case underscored the judiciary’s challenges in recognizing consent and the systemic hurdles survivors face in seeking justice. The ruling also spurred the formation of various women’s rights groups, including the Forum Against Rape (later renamed Forum Against Oppression of Women). It ignited national conversations on legal reforms for sexual violence cases.

The discussion noted the need for stronger institutional support for survivors of violence and improved legal literacy among rural women. Adv. D’Mello highlighted the role of activism and legal advocacy in pushing for progressive legal changes.

Following this, Adv. D’Mello elaborated on gender-based violence as one of the most significant barriers to inclusive development in India. She explained how it undermines the full participation of citizens, preventing women from reaching their potential. She discussed the challenges women face when standing up against violence, often losing family support in the process. She introduced the concept of feminist lawyering, emphasizing the importance of a legal approach rooted in gender justice.

She then defined violence in the Indian context, explaining that it is deeply embedded in patriarchal structures. Gender, she asserted, is a social construct, which means that societal norms dictate women’s roles and reinforce inequalities. Women often express their suffering by saying, “I have suffered too much; I want justice.” This highlights the necessity of recognizing intersectionality in legal and policy frameworks, as various social categories and contexts influence the extent and impact of gender-based violence.

Community reactions to domestic violence are often shaped by religious and cultural influences, which can either provide support or act as barriers to justice. The discussion also covered the concept of shelter homes, where women facing domestic violence are often referred for safety. However, Adv. D’Mello questioned whether these centers genuinely offer refuge, noting that many resemble prisons, restricting women’s freedom rather than empowering them. The unhygienic and restrictive conditions often make it difficult for women to stay in these shelters, forcing them to return to toxic environments.

The harsh reality that domestic violence is so normalized in Indian society that many women do not receive support from their own families, she said. Without financial resources, agency, or societal backing, they often have no choice but to return to abusive households. This creates a vicious cycle where legal recourse is inaccessible or ineffective.

The discussion also included the challenges faced by transwomen and women with different gender identities, underscoring the need for an inclusive approach to gender justice.

Structural inequities rooted in caste, class, disability, and age further disenfranchise rural women, deepening their exclusion from state support and access to gender justice. These intersecting barriers often make it even more difficult for marginalized women to seek protection or justice, as they face systemic discrimination in legal, economic, and social spheres. Addressing gender-based violence requires an approach that accounts for these multiple layers of oppression, ensuring that laws and policies are truly accessible to all women, particularly those at the fringes of society.

The session concluded with a call to action for increasing awareness of gender justice, addressing systemic biases in the judiciary, and strengthening grassroots movements to ensure equitable access to justice for all women.

Then, the session was opened for discussion with learners. Learner Nupur inquired about the court’s statement, which she found insensitive and saddening. She was reminded of the Mathura case discussed earlier in the session and raised concerns about judicial bias. She questioned how such judges, who lack sensitivity towards gender justice, could be influenced to drive better policies and deliver unbiased judgments. She cited a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which stated that “grabbing breasts, breaking pyjama strings is not enough for a charge of attempt to rape.”

The court modified the charges against two accused men, who had initially been summoned under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act. The case involved the attempted rape of a minor girl in 2021, where the accused offered her a lift and later attempted to assault her. Passersby intervened, forcing the accused to flee. The court’s decision to lessen the charges was met with widespread criticism, highlighting the persistent gaps in legal interpretations of gender-based violence and the urgent need for judicial sensitivity training.

The facilitator responded by acknowledging the disappointment that such judicial rulings evoke, emphasizing that legal interpretations often reflect broader societal biases. She highlighted the urgent need for judicial sensitization programs that train judges on gender justice and the lived realities of survivors. She pointed out that legal education must evolve to incorporate feminist jurisprudence and intersectionality, ensuring that judgments do not reinforce patriarchal norms but rather uphold the principles of justice and equality. The facilitator also stressed the importance of public advocacy and grassroots movements in challenging regressive legal interpretations. She encouraged young legal practitioners and activists to engage with judicial institutions, push for reforms, and hold the judiciary accountable through legal reviews, media discourse, and sustained activism.

The next learner, Amit, asked the facilitator, “As a fellow, how do we navigate these challenges when the systems we are working with lack gender sensitivity?” The facilitator responded by acknowledging the complexities of working within such systems. She emphasized that being a public policy fellow is a powerful and meaningful role because it allows individuals to directly engage with policy implementation and systemic change. She appreciated Amit’s commitment to gender justice and highlighted that different locations require different interventions, making the fellows’ work crucial in tailoring solutions to local contexts.

She further shared that meaningful change and revolution in gender justice come gradually, requiring persistence and collective efforts. While various government schemes exist for women, many fail to address their needs due to gaps in implementation and awareness. This, she noted, is where fellows can play a critical role—by bridging these gaps, advocating for gender-sensitive policies, and ensuring that schemes reach the intended beneficiaries.

She also mentioned the work of our Transform Rural India, which is actively engaging women’s community collectives and linking them to livelihood opportunities. Organizations like TRI, she emphasized, can drive drastic transformations by empowering women at the grassroots level, fostering economic independence, and ensuring their active participation in decision-making processes. The facilitator then discussed the need for continuous engagement at both the community and systemic levels, never losing sight of the long-term goal of gender justice. She stressed that patriarchy is deeply embedded in institutions and affects all aspects of society, including those working within these systems.

Everyone, knowingly or unknowingly, plays a role in maintaining power structures, and it is crucial to question and challenge them constantly.

She highlighted the alarming reality that many cases of sexual harassment and abuse occur within families, yet these cases are underreported due to social stigma and the fear of tarnishing the family’s image. Statistics show that a significant number of women experience sexual violence within their own homes, yet seeking justice remains difficult due to societal pressures. She noted that family institutions are expected to provide safety, but when they fail, survivors are left with limited options.

The next learner, Arkja, asked a crucial question regarding cases of consensual relationships between individuals under 18 and the strong governmental push to register such cases. She pointed out that in certain discussions around marriage, particularly involving teachers, there were concerns about how such situations should be handled. Arkja suggested that awareness and education could be a potential solution but emphasized that mandatory registration remains a challenge.

She then raised another issue related to hospitals. In some states, doctors have been engaged to address gender-based violence cases, but there has been little follow-up or tangible outcomes. She mentioned plans to conduct sensitization workshops in collaboration with central hospitals to train hospital staff on how to handle such cases effectively. However, she was looking for further insights on how to strengthen such initiatives.

The facilitator responded by discussing the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which was introduced in 2012. She highlighted that while the law is robust in terms of child protection, its implementation presents significant challenges. A particularly controversial clause mandates that any person—a mother, a hospital, or anyone else—who becomes aware of child sexual abuse must report it. Failing to do so is a crime. She emphasized that this provision, while well-intended, has led to unintended consequences, particularly when dealing with consensual relationships among adolescents.

She further elaborated on how the age of consent was raised from 16 to 18 in 2013, following amendments to the criminal law. She pointed out that this legal framework operates within a patriarchal mindset, essentially dictating that young girls should not engage in any sexual activity until they are legally permitted to marry. This rigid approach has led to significant suffering for young women who find themselves caught between legal restrictions and social realities.

Discussing child marriage, the facilitator explained that in states like Chhattisgarh, families are often complicit in marrying off their daughters at a young age. Despite the prevalence of child marriage, very few cases are officially registered because the practice is deeply embedded in societal norms, and various stakeholders, including families and local authorities, turn a blind eye. She questioned why cases of consensual relationships between adolescents were being registered, while child marriages were not, highlighting a systemic contradiction.

She identified two primary scenarios in which these cases come to light. The first occurs when a girl becomes pregnant. Many young girls do not realize they are pregnant until it is too late. Out of fear and lack of awareness, they may attempt unsafe methods to terminate the pregnancy. Eventually, when complications arise, they visit a public hospital, where the pregnancy is discovered, leading to the automatic registration of a case. In contrast, if they visit a private hospital, the matter is often concealed due to socioeconomic disparities. The facilitator estimated that such cases constitute 50-60% of reported incidents, exposing the intersection of class and access to healthcare in these situations.

The second scenario involves girls running away from home, often labeled as ‘Romeo and Juliet’ cases. She emphasized the need to question why girls run away in the first place. Many of these girls experience abuse—physical, emotional, or even sexual—within their own families. In their desperation to escape, they may see a relationship, however flawed, as a way out. While some of these relationships may be exploitative, the larger issue remains the unsafe and oppressive environments these girls are fleeing from.

The facilitator stressed the importance of shifting the focus from punitive legal action to addressing the root causes that push young girls into such situations. She urged for a more nuanced approach, including better sex education—not just about safe practices but also about recognizing and addressing abuse within households. She called for a deeper examination of runaway cases to understand the systemic failures that lead to such desperate measures.

Lastly, the moderator, Pritha, specifically inquired about the response of police officers, prosecutors, and judges to gender-based violence cases, as well as the effectiveness of stakeholder accountability after undergoing training.

The facilitator shared her experiences in conducting police training sessions, recalling how, in the early days, she was often the only woman in a room filled with male officers who were resistant to discussions on gender sensitivity. However, following high-profile cases like the 2012 Nirbhaya incident, there was a noticeable shift, with increased openness to such training due to public outrage and legal mandates for reform.

She recounted her first session on the Criminal Law Amendment Act, where senior police officers initially reacted with skepticism and frustration, questioning the feasibility of enforcing gender-sensitive laws. Many officers expressed concerns that handling such cases was not as straightforward as the law suggested, and some even believed that discouraging women from filing complaints was a way of “protecting” them from further distress.

The discussion left the room with important reflections on the gaps in legal frameworks, the unintended consequences of certain laws, and the need for systemic and cultural change to effectively combat gender-based violence, rather than relying solely on punitive measures.

In conclusion, the facilitator shared a poster of a women’s domestic violence helpline, urging everyone to spread awareness and share it with any woman in distress who might need support.

(This lecture note was authored by Nupur Nawani, a Praxis Learner from the 2023–2025 cohort, currently placed in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.)