Months after India replaced the traditional blindfolded Lady Justice with a saree-clad figure whose eyes are wide open, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that non-consensual anal penetration does not qualify as rape under Indian law.
What does Lady Justice, with her eyes that refuse to look away, see?
Survivors who are disbelieved. Courts that bend over backwards to define rape in ways that protect the accused. A system where conviction rates are so abysmal that most perpetrators walk free.
A woman says she was violated against her will, but the court says: Not rape. Not if she&rsquo;s married to her rapist. Not even if she died as a result of the non-consensual penetration.
This isn&rsquo;t just a legal loophole&mdash;it&rsquo;s a gaping wound in our justice system. While Lady Justice now watches, our judiciary continues to look for technicalities to deny survivors justice.
One does not need to be a legal scholar to see that <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/whos-afraid-of-criminalising-marital-rape-7691493" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reform is desperately needed</a>. When laws fail to recognize the full spectrum of sexual violence, when they excuse acts of violation based on outdated definitions, they embolden perpetrators and betray survivors. Consent is not a technicality&mdash;it is the foundation of any just legal system.
In the US, the $7 million civil suit against best-selling author Neil Gaiman highlights the point&nbsp;that consent is not a blanket pass granted once at the beginning of a relationship. A person can consent to sex but not to every possible act. They can say yes one day and no the next. They can agree to intimacy but draw boundaries within it. When a survivor alleges non-consensual anal penetration in the context of a bath, it doesn&rsquo;t matter if they were in a long-term relationship or had consented to other kinds of sex before. The only question that matters is: Did they consent in that moment? If not, then it is a violation, full stop.
This is where legal systems and cultural attitudes so often fail. Too many people&mdash;and courts&mdash;still struggle to grasp that consent is ongoing, specific, and revocable. The idea that certain acts can be &ldquo;accidental&rdquo;or that past intimacy implies a standing agreement erases the fundamental principle that every sexual act requires active, enthusiastic consent. Whether in India, where marital rape remains legal, or in the broader world where survivors still battle disbelief and minimization, the refusal to recognize these violations for what they are perpetuates the same injustice: a system that bends over backwards to protect the accused while leaving survivors to fight for their right to be heard.
In France, for instance, Gis&egrave;le P&eacute;licot faced her rapists&mdash;including her husband&mdash;in open court, dismantling the silence that so often protects predators. The prosecutors in her case made it clear: &ldquo;There&rsquo;s no such thing as ordinary, accidental, involuntary rape.&rdquo;&nbsp;These words should not be revolutionary. They should be self-evident.
India&rsquo;s reforms after Nirbhaya were meant to be a step forward, yet here we are, still grappling with a system that prioritizes legalese over lived trauma. Survivors are gaslit into believing their violation wasn&rsquo;t real enough, violent enough, or, as in this case, the &ldquo;right kind&rdquo;&nbsp;of crime to warrant justice.
Why are survivors forced to be the evidence? Why must their pain be dissected, their credibility scrutinized, their trauma weighed against legal technicalities? The burden is always on them: to prove they resisted enough, that their suffering is real enough, that their violation fits into narrow legal definitions. When courts rule that certain acts don&rsquo;t qualify as rape because of outdated language in the law, they aren&rsquo;t just failing survivors&mdash;they are making a statement that some forms of violence simply don&rsquo;t matter.
Sexual violence is not just a crime of physical force; it is a crime of power, of coercion, of stripping someone of agency. Whether in a marriage, a relationship, or a fleeting encounter, the absence of consent should be enough. Survivors should not have to perform their pain in courtrooms, should not have to justify why they froze instead of fought, why they stayed instead of ran. The question should never be whether they &ldquo;proved&rdquo; their assault&mdash;it should be whether the system is willing to see the truth staring it in the face.
We need legal reform that actually protects survivors, not one that splits hairs over definitions while erasing lived realities. We need a system that does not force victims&mdash;of any gender&mdash;into silence with impossible burdens of proof. 
And above all, we need to stop pretending that technicalities can ever justify violation.

What does Lady Justice see with eyes that refuse to look away?

Chhattisgarh HC ruling highlights the urgent need for reform to protect survivors & ensure justice

India’s Legal Blind Spot on Rape and Consent

Chhattisgarh HC ruling highlights the urgent need for reform to protect survivors & ensure justice

February 14, 2025 | 13:38 IST