Citation

Sakhrani M. Indian J. Gend. Stud. 2016; 23(2): 260-285.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0971521516635347

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The article looks at the changes post the Mathura rape case. Over the years, the law relating to rape has undergone several changes, but the question remains: has the law really changed? I look at judgments of the Supreme Court of India to argue that the same judicial reasoning used in the Mathura rape case are still valid today and the construction of consent/ non consent remains a contentious issue as the changes in the law have failed to address the issue of difference between passive submission and consent as well as the medicalization of consent. The article argues that the reason why changes in law have not led to change in the conviction rate is because the amendments to the rape law do not move away from this circular discourse of consent and non-consent as it is set by the stranglehold of the very structure of legal discourse and the impossibility of having a successful law reform by moving away from such discourse. The answer I suggest is in looking at the law relating to consent in cases other than rape, that is, in property and contract which are based on mutuality of intent. The article concludes by stating that the rape law needs reconstitution with the woman as the subject of the law and not its object.

Language: en