How much will the Aparajita Bill, 2024 help?

The Aparajita Bill, passed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly in 2024, was introduced in response to public outrage following the tragic rape and murder of a 31-year-old trainee doctor at Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College. The incident sent shockwaves throughout the state, leading the government to come up with legislation that promised stricter penalties for perpetrators of sexual crimes. The word Aparajita, which means undefeated, the bill aims to symbolise resilience and the state's commitment to curbing gender-based violence. However, while its intent is noble, the bill has been met with significant criticism, with many questioning its efficacy and long-term impact.

The Aparajita Bill proposes several changes to West Bengal's legal framework on sexual crimes, including the introduction of the death penalty for offenders in extreme cases where the victim dies or suffers permanent injury. The bill also mandates the establishment of Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs) to expedite the judicial process, particularly in cases involving sexual assault and crimes against children under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Investigations are expected to be completed within 21 days, with a preliminary report to be submitted within a month. Additionally, the bill introduces safety measures for women in workplaces and public institutions, with an emphasis on securing environments like hospitals, where the RG Kar tragedy occurred. CCTV cameras and other security mechanisms are to be installed to ensure the safety of women, especially those working night shifts.

Despite these provisions, critics argue that the bill represents a hasty response to public pressure rather than a comprehensive solution to the systemic issues underlying sexual violence. One of the primary criticisms is that the bill was rushed through the assembly without adequate debate or consultation with experts in criminal justice and gender rights. It is also being viewed as a political manoeuvre aimed at quelling public anger rather than an effective legal reform.

Moreover, the introduction of the death penalty has sparked controversy. While the death penalty is seen by some as a deterrent to heinous crimes, human rights activists and legal scholars argue that it may not serve its intended purpose. Research suggests that capital punishment does not significantly deter crime, and there are concerns that harsher penalties might lead to further harm, as offenders may be more likely to kill victims in an attempt to eliminate witnesses.

Another significant point of criticism is the emphasis on punitive measures rather than preventive action. The bill focuses on delivering severe punishments after the crime has occurred but does little to address the root causes of gender-based violence, such as societal attitudes, lack of education, and insufficient support systems for survivors. Many argue that the government should invest in long-term solutions, such as educational programmes aimed at changing societal views on gender, improved sex education, and increased resources for victims, including psychological counselling and legal assistance. By only focusing on punishment, it is feared that the underlying issues perpetuating sexual violence may remain unaddressed.

The practicality of implementing FTCS proposed by the bill has also been questioned. India's judicial system is already overburdened, with millions of cases pending across various courts. While fast-tracking cases related to sexual violence is a commendable goal, it may be difficult to achieve given the current situation. Critics argue that placing arbitrary time limits on investigations and trials could lead to rushed judgments and compromised justice. There are concerns that the system may prioritise speed over thoroughness, resulting in either wrongful convictions or insufficiently punished offenders. A better approach, they argue, would be to strengthen the capacity of the judicial system through increased resources.

Additionally, there are concerns that the bill’s focus on surveillance and security measures, such as installing CCTV cameras, does not address the cultural and institutional norms that contribute to sexual violence. While such measures may help in specific cases, they do not fundamentally shift the conditions that allow violence to occur in the first place. Institutions may comply with security measures on paper but fail to implement the cultural changes needed to ensure a truly safe environment for women. Without addressing the broader cultural issues, surveillance alone may not be enough to prevent future incidents of violence.

To move beyond the immediate, reactive nature of the Aparajita Bill, a multi-faceted approach that focuses on both preventive and punitive measures should be used. This would include educational campaigns to raise awareness about gender-based violence, reforms within law enforcement to ensure that officers are properly trained to handle such cases sensitively, and improved support systems for survivors of sexual violence. Prevention programmes that start in schools and continue into the workplace could help change societal attitudes over time, making it less likely that violence will occur in the first place.

This article is authored by Aparajitha Nair.