sexual harassment of female wrestlers

Indian wrestlers’ struggle for justice against sexual harassment

The struggle began on January 18, 2023, when a group of wrestlers began their protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, with the demand for justice against sexual harassment of female wrestlers, both major and minor, by the chief of Wrestlers Federation of India, Mr. Brij Bhushan Singh. They wanted him to be disbanded and for an investigation to be conducted into the matter.  

The accused, Mr. Singh, holds an influential position in society. He is an MP from the State of Uttar Pradesh, belonging to the current ruling party. Apart from the current allegations, there were various charges pending against him including those of murder, kidnapping, theft, and one for being involved in terrorist activities.  

Two days after the protests began, a meeting was held with the Sports Ministry. The Ministry assured the wrestlers of the formation of an Oversight committee which would investigate the matter. The Ministry also assured the wrestlers that Mr. Singh would be asked to step aside until the completion of the process. Consequently, a six-member committee was constituted, and the Committee came to be headed by Mary Kom. The other members of the Committee also include former wrestler Yogeshwar Dutt, ex-badminton player Trupti Murgunde, ex-TOPS CEO Capt. Rajagopalan, SAI Executive director Radhica Sreeman and ex-wrestler Babita Phogat. The Committee was allotted a total of 6 weeks to complete the investigation. However, the wrestlers were disappointed with the fact that the government did not consult them regarding the choice of committee members.  

While on one hand, the wrestlers were kept in dark regarding the committee’s report, on the other hand, their attempt in April, 2023 to file a FIR against the accused in Delhi failed due to lack of cooperation by the police.  Agitated by the lack of development, the wrestlers resumed their protests. A day later, the government reported that by a 5-1 verdict, Mr. Singh had been given a clean chit, mentioning only structural lapses and lack of communication between the federation and sportspersons as the issues. Still, the report was and has still not been made available for perusal of the wrestlers. It was claimed by Babita Phogat, one of the committee members, that the witnesses were not cross-questioned by the committee. This shows a serious lack of accountability and willingness to punish the accused.  

The protests in April were much stronger and wanting a stern action by the government as the relatives of the minor girl had been threatened by Mr. Singh’s men. The issue of victim protection became the highlight even though it was assured that their identity would not be revealed, considering the sensitivity of the matter and the kind of nature of offences involved, i.e., sexual harassment, stalking amongst others.  

In a hope for justice, wrestlers filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, before the Supreme Court against the inaction of the Delhi Police (XYZ and Ors. V. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., WP (Crl) No. 189/2023). The Apex Authority disposed of the petition on 4th May 2023, on the ground that Police had filed FIRs against WFI president Brij Bhushan Singh. This indicates that there was a prima facie case for which a complaint could have been registered. However, the Delhi Police’s reluctance to file the FIR was ignored by the Supreme Court. The Apex Body closed the case as soon as FIR was filed. Another failure on part of Supreme Court happened when even after request by the wrestlers, the Court refused to monitor the investigation process. In a 2009 case [Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors., SLP (Crl) No. 888/09], it had been ruled by the Apex Court that the Supreme Court and High Courts possess the power to supervise and monitor the investigation in the interest of fairness and to ensure unbiased process. Despite possessing such power, the Supreme Court did not supervise the investigation and provided the petitioners the option to approach either Jurisdictional Magistrate or High Court (under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482, CrPC) as the case may be, in case of any grievances.   

Two FIRs were filed against Mr. Singh – first, on charge of Aggravated Sexual Assault (Section 10, POCSO Act) and second, for outraging the modesty of a woman (Section 354, IPC). The FIRs mention instances of the accused asking for sexual favours in exchange for professional assistance (Section 354A, IPC), inappropriate touching, molestation, stalking (Section 354D, IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506, IPC). Vinod Tomar, assistant secretary of WFI, was also charged with abetment of the above offences under Section 109, IPC. Even though the offences alleged were cognizable, non-bailable and required immediate arrest without a warrant, the police did not arrest the accused. On 11th May 2023, Mr. Singh was examined and questioned for 3 hours by Delhi Police and his statement was recorded.  

On 28th May 2023, when the wrestlers attempted to bring plank beds to the protest site in response to unseasonal rain and water logging, they were manhandled and detained by the police. This action was condemned by the International Olympic committee as “very disturbing”.  

A week after this incident, the minor’s father withdrew the complaint. Earlier she had given two statements, one before the police under Section 161, CrPC and another before the Magistrate under Section 164, CrPC. Despite these, she was questioned again in the presence of 4 constables for around 5 hours. Consequently, she recorded a fresh statement before the Magistrate in which she claimed that all her previous statements were false. As a result, her father withdrew the complaint. This shows a clear instance of re-victimization and the effect of Mr. Singh’s influence for tampering the investigation process.   

Consequently, a meeting took place between the wrestlers and the Sports Minister who assured them to get the investigation completed by 15th June 2023 and requested them to halt the protest till then. As promised, the investigation was completed but a cancellation report was filed before the Patiala High Court by the accused regarding the POCSO case on the ground that the minor had withdrawn her allegations. The matter was listed on 04th July 2023, with consideration to be made by the court whether to accept the report or decline it and issue summons or order further investigation. In regard to the sexual harassment case, a chargesheet was filed against both, Mr. Singh and Mr. Tomar, by Delhi Police, serving as the first significant breakthrough in the case.  

As the chargesheet had been filed and the offences mentioned therein were punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment, the accused were not arrested in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [SLP (Crl.) No. 5191/ 2021] When they applied for anticipatory bail [Section 438, CrPC] before the Rose Avenue Court, Delhi, they were granted interim bail on 18 July and two days later regular bail was also granted with certain conditions. 

  1. To pay bail bond of Rs 25,000,  
  1. Not to leave the country without any prior permission of the court,  
  1. Not to threaten or influence the complainants or witnesses,  
  1. To cooperate with the investigation process. 

To summarize, the government was reluctant in the beginning to take cognizance for unknown reasons. When they took note of the same, the inquiry process was delayed, and the report of the committee could not obtain the confidence of the wrestlers. After delayed registration of FIRs, that too after the intervention of the Supreme Court, both the accused have been released on bail.        

The writer hopes that judiciary ensures the faith that people possess in the institution and safeguard the rights of the wrestlers to ensure their ability to work with dignity without any potential threat of any such action being repeated in future.  

References  

Vani Garg, 4th Year, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 

Intern 

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Legal Swan and any of its affiliates. 

Tags: No tags

Comments are closed.