The Myth of Presumption of Innocence

Prima facie there appear two contrasting consequences of the #MeToo movement in India and both are distress signals indicating failure of the legal system- in dealing with legal injury of women having been victims of sexual harassment and beyond while, at the same time, in upholding one of the core values of an advanced society, the presumption of innocence. A principled approach would provide for a pause to all those partaking in the pleasure of the movement and ponder over the consequences of accusations which, fraught as I am with the desire to label as ‘mere accusations’, dare not do for fear of falling into the same pit of malice that so many others seem to have fallen prey to- of tearing apart benefit of the doubt. While most others seem to enjoy erring on the side of caution (and boy, do they err), I would prefer the sunnier side of doubt. 

It is unnerving the ease with which one can ruin careers sitting in front of screens and baffling how most instances of the accusations made involved alleged actions occurring years back. While the dominant narrative suggests this to be power of the movement, a slightly contrarian view would suggest it to be an after-thought. And if one really is a stickler for the law, Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide the limitation period to be 3 years, a threshold crossed in majority of the cases of alleged sexual harassment. Taking this to the realm of criminal jurisprudence, it would be remiss to ignore that such allegations need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof is on the one who declares and not on the one who denies- a fact easily forgotten in sea of passion that is Twitter.

Another theme attached to the movement has been the lack of belief in the judicial system on varying grounds- temporal, monetary et al. It seems reasonable to assume, with the momentum that the movement has gained, that courts would find it expedient in the interest of justice to give these cases priority. On the latter issue, since the allegations involving celebrities of the film industry find themselves geographically located in Mumbai, the Maharashtra Government, through the Bombay Court Fees Act has exempted women from paying court fees. Showing due deference to the wisdom of the legal advisors of the ones alleging, awareness of these facts stands to reason. Yet one finds multiple instances of this defunct rhetoric at play.

More so than all else, it is disheartening to see individuals’ lives undergoing upheaval through social media posts which are ‘unverified’ more often than not. Every individual has opinions but when all these opinions collapse onto an individual to pass verdict is when the behavior depicts that of a mob. It is this tribalism that led us into this post-truth era and we suffer the ramifications in the form of infraction of the most fundamental of fundamental rights. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution reads, ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.’ The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., further read right to work as a part of right to life and that the same is violated when just and fair procedure established by law is not followed. In all the cases involving the #MeToo movement, including but not limited to allegations against Mr. Nana Patekar, Mr. Vikas Bahl, Mr. MJ Akbar, the individuals have been forced to step down from the positions they occupied/ work that they had been part of. How then is the procedure established by law not redundant?

Maybe all alleged are, in fact, guilty. But what if even one is not? Would you, the reader, if accused, not wish for someone to have not presumed the worst about you, to have given you the benefit of the doubt, to have believed in your innocence?