Is naming and shaming of perpetrators a right recourse to address sexual harassment? Analyse this in the light of due process of law.
Refer – The Hindu
IAS Parliament 6 years
KEY POINTS
· An initiative on Facebook which named Indian academics, who have been indicted of sexual harassment as well as persons against whom vague charges have been made without any details by the complainants.
Why it is a right recourse?
· This campaign is the result of genuine frustration of a flawed system that does not address the victim’s concerns’ effectively.
· Complaints or charges of sexual harassment are difficult to prove.
· The survivor undergoes a lot of agony during the process.
· A mere act of public naming is neither a formal complaint nor a verdict of law.
· Hence, no institutional consequences will be initiated against the perpetrator.
· If the survivors’ reveal their identity, it is easy for the alleged perpetrators to identify them.
· And also, it is difficult for the victim to continue their study or work in the perpetrator’s presence thereafter.
· Under such circumstances, the secrecy attached to the list has given vent to the anger of women who have suffered harassment and made it easier for them to speak about it.
Implications on women safety
· It makes some poorly kept non-secrets public.
· It comes with the advantage of warning potential future victims.
· But, it is also said to be a violation of due process of law.
Due Process of law
· It involves a process that respects the rights of persons.
· In this case especially, all persons have a right to know the accusation against them with a right to defend themselves — not merely in a court of law or inquiry but in any public sphere.
Implications on alleged perpetrators
· Even though, naming an alleged perpetrator will not result in institutional consequences, but it has caused irreparable damage to the reputation of these individuals.
· It is being highly criticized for naming people without giving them an opportunity to respond to the allegations and defend themselves.
Solutions
· The right of the complainants to remain anonymous as they are up against men of influence is justifiable.
· But, it is their prerogative to provide some more information to ensure accountability.
· A suitable space should be provided to the alleged perpetrators in order to defend themselves.
· Evaluation of legislative norms to accommodate certain concerns that have been ignored until now will result in mutual benefits of both safeguarding citizens from random accusation and as well as women safety.
· Until then, anonymous public naming is not only an ethically sound act, but perhaps the only available recourse.
