When a woman’s clothes are torn during a police crackdown, not just democratic protocol but basic human dignity is violated and shattered.
By Rajeshree Nagarsekar
/_____________________
Under statutory legal provisions, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) guidelines, etc; the state is legally bound to protect the modesty of a woman during crowd control operations. Most importantly the reference to the landmark Supreme Court judgments -- the Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra has to be made. These judgments arising from Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by independent journalist Sheela Barse are said to have drastically reshaped the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by extending basic human rights, dignity, and legal protection to prisoners. It acts as a foundational constitutional shield and can be directly applied to safeguard the rights of female protestors who are detained or arrested by enforcing strict gender-specific procedural protocols, preventing custodial abuse, and ensuring immediate legal access.
We are largely aware that the state police manuals and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) strictly dictate that female protesters must be approached, handled, and detained exclusively by female police personnel using minimal force. If a woman’s clothes are torn, whether accidentally in a scuffle or deliberately by the personnel, the directives mandate that the police must immediately halt coercive action, guard her physical privacy, and provide alternative attire before proceeding with detention.
Now, let us analyze these directives against the recent events in Goa, and the ongoing institutional gap between code and conduct. Public assembly and the right to peaceful dissent are foundational pillars protected under the Constitution of India. Therefore, the recent standoff between protestors and police at Azad Maidan and the subsequent fallout has reignited an intense debate. While sadly most of it has become political, the debate, to my mind, should get back to the fundamentals -- police conduct, gender-sensitive policing, and what happens when the legal shields meant to safeguard a woman's dignity fail on the ground.
In the case of protesting youth leader Amreen Shaikh whose basic right to dignity stands violated, we may need to refer to the protocol for compromised clothing under the state manual and human rights which dictate that "If a protester’s clothing is torn, police must immediately cover the individual to protect her modesty. Law enforcement agencies should maintain contingency kits (often containing standard clothing) at detention centres and inside transit vehicles specifically to address situations where clothing is damaged during a scuffle. Continuing to parade, drag, or photograph a woman whose clothes are torn constitutes a severe violation of human rights and exposes the officers to criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for outraging a woman's modesty."
Despite these clear protocols, crowd control operations, we often witness how legal boundaries blur. Police sources and online counter-narratives suggest that demonstrators deliberately engage in self-inflicted wardrobe damage to defame personnel, though these claims remain unverified.
The systemic failure to maintain a decent, rights-respecting environment during public agitations has drawn sharp rebukes from statutory watchdogs, especially after what happened at Jantar Mantar students protest.
In this case too, the Human Rights Commission should take suo motu cognisance of the concerns raised by issuing a formal notice to the Goa Police seeking a detailed probe. Fundamentally because,
when a woman protestor's clothes are torn during a police crackdown, it is not just democratic protocol that is violated but the basic human dignity is shattered. That is precisely the reason civil society in Goa is up in arms against this high-handed action by the Goa Police. Though the High Court subsequently stepped in to ensure the release of the detained protesters, the physical and systemic overreach of the state apparatus remains a dark stain on the current administration's record.
I also wish to call out the political tribalism that followed. During my stint as the Goa head of a national political party I had laid out one thing very clearly -- political affiliation should never act as a blindfold to structural misconduct, especially with regards to women. And I put this in practice despite the whip which I almost conveniently chose to ignore. What has one to lose standing for what you believe? I ask the dedicated women BJP workers. I appeal to you in this case and to women across all political parties to draw a line where partisan loyalty ends and the defense of absolute dignity of women begins. To remain silent, or worse, to actively defend or downplay an incident where a woman's clothes are torn under police custody, sets a dangerous precedent.
Women within the political sphere must find the moral courage to speak out when a fellow woman is manhandled. Dissent is a constitutional right, and it must never be policed through the stripping away of a citizen’s dignity.
And to Amreen. Although the administration may attempt to suppress you through public humiliation and police crackdowns, these actions should only embolden you to confront their wrongdoings and emerge as a stronger leader.
_____________________
Comments
Post a Comment