 Yes, sure. Yeah, just told him. We will be live on the YouTube simultaneously. Okay, fine. Yeah, good evening friends. And recently I've seen a video of this professor, Dr. B. S. Elzabeth, the Vice Chancellor of Tamil Nadu National Law University, and when I, thereafter, looked into it, I've found that not only her knowledge is good, her passion towards the gender justice is one of the aspects which is quite close to her. Thereafter, I requested a close friend of mine, Mr. Srinivas Raghavan, if he could share the number so that we could also share the knowledge through a resource person who is well-versed and needless to say that ma'am carries the respect beyond Tamil Nadu and to all those students who have been passionate about understanding of the law etc. Without taking much time and request ma'am B. S. Elzabeth, who has acceded to our request to share her knowledge. Yeah, thank you, I couldn't unmute myself. Good evening everyone and thank you Mr. Chathrit for inviting me to this program and giving me this opportunity to share some of my thoughts on this issue, which is something that I have been working on. And it's very important to me, both as a professor and as a researcher. All of us are familiar with the fact that the status of women is poorer or lower than that of men in our country, when we generally speak about it. There may be women belonging to different castes, different classes, who might be better off than say men belonging to the Dalit communities or other marginalized groups. But when we speak in general terms, when you look at all the statistics that are there in terms of the gender development index, we find that the condition of women, the status of women is definitely lower, be it literacy, be it access to opportunities, be it economic access to economic resources, be it social status, be it political participation on all levels, we see that these status of women is less than that of men. At the same time, I'm sure all of us especially I'm assuming that most of you who are here listening today to this talk are lawyers, or at least associated with the law in one form or the other. And therefore, all of you would be aware then of the fact that we have numerous legislations. In fact, sometimes some of the very misogynistic groups of men have agitated against these legislations be the 2005 protection of women from domestic violence Act, or the 2013 sexual harassment prevention prohibition and redressal act, or any amendments made to the IPC or to, you know, the, what do you say, personal laws, we have agitation saying that there are too many laws which are protecting women and for women on the other hand are you know misusing the law like with reference to section 498A of the IPC. Now, where does the reality lie, right. Is it that women are misusing the law and they don't need all these special protections, or is the fact that the status of women is low and we do have these laws but these laws have not made any difference in the lives of women, in terms of you know improving their status, reducing the number of crimes against them. My particular area of work is with regard to violence against women and so I'm not going to be addressing issues of discrimination and inequality in the areas of family law, and other things only I might in passing remark on them. At the same time, of course, when we're looking at the ways in which some of these things have made a difference in the lives of women. This is through the courts and particularly through the Supreme Court. Occasionally, high courts of different states have also interpreted the law in such a manner that it has been to the advantage of women. So today, the reason I have even thought up on a topic like this is all of you are lawyers, or at least working with the courts, and therefore I just want to place before you the possibilities that are there, and especially when we are concerned with these issues of justice and equality. And therefore how can we, how can we, as people working with the law, make a difference when there is a constitution which guarantees the equality between men and women as of now and through the Supreme Court judgments we also know that it takes into consideration transgender women are subject to various forms of violence, various kinds of discrimination, be it at the workplace in the home or in society in general in terms of access to opportunities to resources, etc. What can we as people working with the law, whether lawyers or judges do. And is it possible at all to do that. You know, isn't the court, like we've been hearing in the recent, you know, marriage equality hearings, and saying that the court, the government is saying you know that is something to be decided by parliament court can't do these things. Is that really true. Right. So, I want to start off with one of the earliest cases, especially when you're looking at the court and international law. So when we're all familiar today with the sexual harassment act 2013 act which is sometimes called the posh act etc. It's not like sexual harassment you know just began to happen now in 2013. We are all familiar with the Vishakha judgment. Now when you read through the Vishakha judgment at the time that the Vishakha judgment was pronounced. There was no law dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace. No legislation had been enacted. So provisions in the Indian penal code that could address sexual harassment in a very kind of roundabout way, like you know, section 354 and section 509. They really did not talk about sexual harassment the way in which women experience it, you know, it is not about outraging the modesty. It is about intrusion into the private space of women. It is about touching their bodies without their consent. There was no law dealing with any of this. So when Vishakha and others went to court and the Supreme Court heard them and finally pronounced its judgment in 1997. The court did not invent law, but the court very very creatively decided to interpret the constitution in such a manner as to bring in law that is there internationally so that there can be protection of women's right to equality against discrimination right to choose any business profession or occupation. We know under the constitution. And that is how the Vishakha came in. And how that is how we have the beginning of protection of women against sexual harassment at the workplace took place. So in the Vishakha judgment if you read carefully, they do refer to articles 1415 1921 etc. And then they say under article 51. There is no obligation to implement the international governance that we sign as a form of respect for those governments. And that is how the convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women was brought into the Indian context. According to the report in which the definition of what is sexual harassment is spelled out, and how sexual harassment at the workplace is violation of the right to equality in employment was interpreted. In the process, we have, we had that detailed judgment, which provided not only the fact not only did it accept the fact that sexual harassment the workplace is a violation of human rights that is for the first time, the recognition and acknowledgement that sexual harassment at the workplace is a human rights violation. But from there, they went on to actually provide us the entire scheme by which this particular form of violation of women's human rights could be addressed. They talked about the setting up of the internal complaints committee, the responsibility of the employer, and the whole range of things. One very good example of the lawyers who are representing Vishaka and other organizations and the judges of the Supreme Court in promoting gender justice. I mean, like this was a form of violence, a crime that was committed against women for decades together ever since women went out into the workplace. And yet there was no protection against it. And women were forced either to leave their jobs, or to find another job, or to just tolerate this violence, despite the kind of harm it was causing. But with Vishaka, you have the turning point. Because even before the 2013 act was enacted from 1997 onwards began that process of you know calling upon every organization every institution to set up an internal complaints committee. And in the wake of that judgment that sexual harassment policies were drafted. And the result of it is to be seen in the NCRB data in terms of how many cases of sexual harassment have been registered, and how many of them came up into the courts how many of them have ended up in conviction, and the rest of it. We have a number of other cases of you know violence against women crimes against women, where we see that the number of acquittals is highest compared to conviction. We find that in the sexual harassment cases, even before the 2013 act, we had, you know, high rates of conviction. And for most of us women who are working outside our homes, it has been a major source of encouragement for us. And that means by which we are able to work with dignity, knowing that if we experience sexual harassment at the workplace, we have a ritual mechanism. It isn't something that to put up with that there, you know, we don't have to imagine that there is no alternative, or that there is no remedy for this. So that is the first, you know, time that you see the Supreme Court actually intervene and ensure that, you know, there is gender justice, and it has gone a long way. And of course in a context where this form of violence has been going on for so long, it obviously is going to take a long time before we can see the effectiveness of this. And the fact that the Vishakhay came out to survive today where even, you know, have cases against organizations against institutions, which do not have an IC or do not implement it properly. Of course, it's not like it was a perfect judgment and there were no problems with it. The problems that were there to a certain extent have been remedied through the 2013 act. But for me that is a very good intervention by the Supreme Court in the cause of advancing gender justice. Another similar case, if you have to take up with regard to gender justice is the Gita Hariharan case. Again, you know, you have, we have the constitution guaranteeing equality and non-discrimination. And yet we know that in the practice of guardianship, the father is to be considered as a natural guardian under the Hindu guardianship and Wards Act. The consequence of that is that no woman can go and get a child admitted in a school, open a bank account. Without the authorities in these institutions telling the woman, no, we need the father's, you know, signature, we need the father's approval, we need the father's consent. As you know, the Gita Hariharan case was about that. The mother wanted to, you know, create a deposit in the name of her child at a point in time when there was already a dispute between her and her husband in the court. And the bank manager said, you know, you have to go and get his consent and come. So she then went to court, filed this petition, challenging this provision and saying that, you know, under the constitution articles 14 and 15, this should not be happening at all. Once again, the Supreme Court invoked the Seedaw, the Convention for Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And using that, while they did not declare that section under the Hindu guardianship and Wards Act as unconstitutional, they did state that very clearly that this provides for, you know, that the natural guardian can be the mother to, so long as the father does not have any objection to it. So while that isn't the best solution that one is looking for, at least it opened up the possibility that women too, the mothers too, can be guardians. And of course, that we have a law like that is another problem, where the mother, everybody knows who their mother is, and one knows who the father is because the mother says so. Right, but despite that the law itself, you know, makes a father the natural guardian, and the mother can only be the natural guardian if the father passes the way, or, you know, in other circumstances the father doesn't exist. Now, for me these two are good examples from the Supreme Court, in terms of advocating for women, advocating for justice for women. Before I go to the more recent cases from the Supreme Court, I want to just refer to a decision from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This case is with relation to Sarita, who was an actress at that point in time, and her husband had filed for a situation of conjugal rights. And I really liked it because for the first time you have a judge who really gets into the shoes of a woman, thinks about the consequences of granting this restitution of conjugal rights to a husband, and how it did impact her. You know, when we talk about objectivity in the law, neutrality of the law, it cannot be that the law is blind altogether. The law will have to take into consideration the impact of that law on people who are differently situated, because consequences for people who are differently situated are different depending upon their status. In that kind of a situation you have this judge who says, restitution of conjugal rights for a man may not have the kind of consequences it has for a woman. And what are these consequences for a woman? He says, if I say, if I grant this restitution of conjugal rights, then this woman may get pregnant. If she gets pregnant, it impacts all her decisions after that, whether it's about her career or it's about her day to day existence. And taking all these considerations into, I mean all these situations into consideration, the judge did not grant restitution of conjugal rights to her husband in that case. So while you do have the provision, a remedy, you know, in the form of restitution of conjugal rights where a partner, you know, seeks or a spouse seeks to separate from the other. And more often than not, the courts have granted restitution of conjugal rights without looking at all the implications of doing it. Here you had the example of a high court judge who said this has adverse consequences for the woman. The consequences are not equal for a husband and a wife. When a wife does not want to live with the man to force her into that relationship, which will directly impact both her body physically, as well as her life choices thereafter, he did not grant that restitution of conjugal rights. More recently, of course, you have at least three or four judgments. One is the Nalsa judgment. Now under the Constitution, all citizens, right, every single one of us who is living on Indian soil are citizens of India. We are born here, we are citizens of India. Our parents are here, we are citizens of India. But do we at all think about the numerous people who despite being born here, having their parents being born here, are not in a position to exercise their fundamental human rights. I'm talking here about transgender persons, a trans man, a trans woman. Right to education today is a fundamental right under Article 21a. But how many of the trans persons, trans woman, trans man, trans boy, trans girl have been able to complete even their high school. Because society institutions refuse to register them under the identity that they identify with. They are compelled to either accept the gender assigned to them at birth, or drop out of school or college or university. I know enough people I have met who are in that kind of a situation. So when we wonder about, you know, he does and, you know, others who are begging or in sex work and say why can't these people go to work. We don't stop to think do they have the qualifications which will get them the jobs. And sometimes of course even when they have qualifications, will people appoint them, give them a job. The many who have managed to become, you know, the principal of a college or get into an office or even get elected, you know, here and there is simply by their tenacity, and they never say die spirit. And not because we as a society and the state doing its job of facilitating access to opportunities and exercise of their rights. Not till the Nalsa judgment. Do we have, you know, the such a directive that came from the court. Now nobody has an excuse. You cannot say you know how do we accommodate them where do we accommodate them are the man or woman, how do we facilitate them. Very clearly the Supreme Court in that decision said that you have to consider them as third gender. When somebody identifies themselves as a third gender, they are entitled to all the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen in the Constitution. As a consequence, now you have to change them and just think of all the applications you filled out in your life. And see exactly where would a trans man or trans woman ever fit into that. Because everything is in a binary male female man woman boy girl. Where will a trans woman or a trans man identify themselves today you're forced to change your application forms in such a way that a trans person can also fill that form up. And today they have the right to identify themselves. It cannot be that somebody else will say whether they are male female or trans person, trans woman or trans man. And it is through the Nalsa judgment that finally trans men and trans women can begin to access their fundamental rights, their fundamental human rights, the right to equality the right against discrimination, the right to education. And, you know, work towards transforming people's minds and attitude so as to ensure that they're all inclusive workplaces to the to the extent of even having to, you know, build restrooms for them. The biggest things is about prisons, and the kind of violence that is perpetrated on trans persons, because they will not be put into the prison for the, for the gender that they identify with. So to me that isn't the third example of gender justice through the courts. The fourth of course is decriminalization of consensual sex between homosexuals 377 is a colonial law and outmoded thing. The purpose behind it is extremely problematic, but the consequence of section 377 of the IPC for decades together has been the criminalization of sexual relations between consenting adults. Not as if we're talking about the context where a child is sexually assaulted, or even an adult is forced to having sex with somebody of the same sex, that is obviously still a crime. You know, and this is the irony of it right on the one hand the state would not enact laws to protect women against domestic violence on the grounds that it cannot enter the private space. This is a liberal approach to the interpretation of the law dividing space into private and public space and saying that private space is you know, completely within the realm of an individual and only in the public space can somebody can the state intervene. And yet when it came to homosexual relations, the state was entering the private space. It's not the case of homosexuals are having sex in the public space. But here you had a lot that was entering, not just the home it went right into the bedroom. I remember this Delhi High Court judgment was said you can't allow right to equality and you know right to life to be exercised by a woman within the home that is like setting a bull into a China shop that it will destroy the family. And yet the very same state had no hesitation entering into the private space and deciding how people will have sex and with whom they'll have sex. I mean is that a public matter at all. Non consensual sex is to be criminalized there is no question of that no doubt in that. But why should consensual sex be anybody's business, who someone is having sex with, and how. So that judgment, you know, of the Delhi High Court, which has been, you know, reinforced by the Supreme Court, I would say is again, another case that we have in the direction of gender justice. Today, of course, there is the case before the Supreme Court, which is about looking at marriage equality. And we've seen how the arguments have gone back and forth and how this will end of course we do not know. But if the very arguments the points that are being made by the judges in the court are extremely important. Because through that they're exploding so many myths, questioning so many stereotypes, and educating all of us who are listening or reading the discussion that is going on in the Supreme Court. I mean the point that Chief Justice Chandrachud said, gender is not simply about genitals, it's much more than that much more complicated than that is such a superb point. Because everything lies on that the almost all the violence against women and trans persons is about non conforming to gender stereotypes. And Chief Justice Chandrachud with that one sentence exploded the entire stereotype. You know, today you're seeing me here. I'm an Asari all right, my voice is different, my hairstyle is different, they don't conform to the gender stereotype. Does that make me any less of a woman I identify as a woman, but just because I don't conform to the gender expectations. Does that make me any less a woman. I'm sure there are millions of people like that in different ways because you know since this sex gender are all social constructs. There can be no perfect male or female, no perfect man or woman. Many of us may be comfortable with the sex assigned to us at birth. But there are many of us equally who are not. We do not want you know in fact this entire lot of this discriminatory practices that we see in our society and the injustice perpetrated particularly the violence that is perpetrated on a daily basis on people who do not conform to these gender stereotypes could be completely done away with if we didn't have these binaries and these gender expectations for a lot of trans women. They want a attire to wear female attire. They want they're not comfortable wearing pants and shirts. They want to dress in saris. For them, they are they want to be doing those things that have been identified as feminine, and not to be done by a boy or a man. They are not allowed to dance, allowed to do rangoli. If these, you know, boxes were not created and people could dress in the clothes that they want. After all it's just a cloth, and this cloth has been evolving at so many different ways, even the hairstyles for that matter. Every society, every culture starts creating these boxes and expects people to conform and fit into those boxes. And if they don't, and they feel threatened, what they do is necessarily to force them into that. And one way to force them into it as one of you have put down is to perpetrate violence on people who don't fit into it. Because many math you put it right, a lot of violence against men who are seen as feminine. Why is that because you have a theory, an abstract theory that a man if you're a man you have you know a penis, you must function like this, you have to behave like this. You have to be aggressive, you have to be confident, you have to be playing football or cricket be outside the house. You should be having a deep voice. You should have short hair, all kinds of things which are expected once you have identified once you've been assigned the male gender. And similarly of course for women, right if you have been identified as a woman or a girl then you're expected to wear dresses, skirts, saris have long hair, be petite, have a high pitched voice. Be submissive, be patient, be tolerant, you know a whole bunch of things. And when you don't conform to these things, then you have the violence perpetrated as a method to force conformity. When you look at sexual harassment against women, it is simply plainly just that, because women are supposed to be in their homes, taking care of you know all the domestic matters cooking, cleaning, washing, taking care of babies or baby brothers and sisters, taking care of their mothers and when they go out they should be with a male they're related to, a father, a husband, a brother. If they're not, if they're on their own, whether it's a single woman as a group of women, going about their daily routine, going to a shop to buy vegetables, going to the bank to draw some money, going to school, going to work, it's not like sexual harassment happens only in the darkness of when women are wearing the so-called non-conforming clothes, exposing their bodies. I don't know if there is even one woman who is listening to me today who can say that she has never experienced sexual harassment. I can tell you from my personal experience that I have never worn sleeveless clothes and walked out. I have never worn a short frock as an adult woman or actually from the time I was about 12 years old. And yet I can tell you and I can, I remember every single incident of sexual harassment that I've been subjected to right up to my 50th year. So it is not about what women wear or don't wear, it is about forcing women to conform to these harassers idea of you know gender. To them, every woman who is outside her home without a male accompanying her who she is related to, she is violating the gender norms. And therefore she's got to be taught a lesson and that is what sexual harassment is about. Domestic violence similarly, if a wife is thought of as not conforming to her role as a wife and mother, then the husband believes he has the right to beat her into submission and conforming to the gender role that she has been assigned in the world like this. What we need therefore is the intervention of lawyers and judges to interpret the Constitution to interpret international covenants on human rights, such that gender justice is you know advocated gender justice is guaranteed that gender justice becomes a reality that those of us who are not men and dominant men exercising authority and power in this patriarchal society are able to access our fundamental human rights that the laws that are there to protect us will really protect us and not just remain on paper. I mean we just had the elections in Karnataka. How many women stood for, you know, the elections, how many of them got elected. On the other hand, look at what has happened in the panchayat level, especially in South India. There aren't even a single woman on the, any of these panchayats, or the corporations and other, you know, local bodies, but because of the 73rd and the 74th amendments, providing for 35% reservation. Today, in South India, I know for a fact in Karnataka, 50% or more are elected to these local bodies. Not by reservation. It has resulted in changing the attitude of people when you know women, 35% women appeared in the panchayats and they worked over time. People have begun to accept the fact that this gender barrier has been broken, and that it isn't harmed society that is actually done good. And therefore they have gone on to repose confidence in more women, and though we do not have a 50% reservation, 50% or more women have been elected to these local bodies. So when the legislature doesn't do this or legislature has enacted laws, but these laws are not being enforced. When it's implemented, it becomes the role of lawyers and judges to see how we can ensure that gender justice is done in our societies. And that is the reason why I picked up this topic, just to give you these few examples. The other example that did, you know, catch my attention was in the context of the Madhya Pradesh, you know, quote, which told a rapist. He was applied for bail, and the court put certain conditions. What were those conditions, telling the rapist that he must go to the home of the woman who had survived his sexual assault, and tie a rocky on her wrist, and to, you know, give sweet to her child. I mean, that is what she wants. I mean, isn't that horrifying that you got to be seeing this guy who has put you through so much of trauma, and which is probably just coming out of and to see this guy all over again. Now that is a bad way of you know functioning as a judge. On the other hand, when this matter was taken up by one of the advocates in Delhi and brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court direction was not to have to instruct the National Judicial Academy, all these state judicial academies and the law colleges and law universities to sensitize their students and the judges to gender issues. And that's the reason why you have that component in the National Judicial Academy. You have sessions on that. Where you try and explain and help judges in fact, this judge in this case particularly said about how judges need to think about these issues from the perspective of the women survivors. How would they feel. I mean what kind of a condition is this for bail that the perpetrator will go scot free by going and you know tying a rocky on the hand drifter for woman whom he has sexually assaulted, or even the cases where you know judges say, Okay, if you'll marry the survivor, then you know, we will acquit you. Does the woman who has been sexually assaulted want to marry this man. If she was in that frame of mind could this have not been already settled outside the court rather than this coming before the court gender justice cannot be from the perspective of, you know people who are not at the receiving end of the injustice. It has to be from the perspective of those who have suffered the violence the discrimination the inequality. And I'm really glad that the Indian Supreme Court has in most cases, or let us at least say many cases, made this intervention. And there are lawyers who have been able to interpret the law in such a manner as to provide justice, because not all the time that the just decision comes out, it automatically results in solving the problem like the Nalsa judgment. The Nalsa judgment has contributed to the idea that you know the government has a responsibility to ensure that trans women and trans men will be considered as third gender and therefore be made be able to access all their opportunities and rights. The reality is that many of them are still trying to get access to just basic school education. They registered under one identity in one name. And, you know, as they begin to be able to speak out, and they self identify that obviously doesn't match, and the school is unwilling to change the name, as well as you know the identity gender in the identity card or on the records. In other cases, they cannot complete that education and get the degree or the certificate in the name in which they live. They can't even participate in any organization. I remember recently one of the organizations that I'm in and we were planning to organize a conference, and a trans woman wanted to participate in that conference under her name. And to allow her to do that, you need an ID which will say that this is who she is. All her IDs are as a male in a different name. And she has been struggling after the Nalsa judgment even to be able to get the ID card in the name in which she wants it now, and the gender that she has identified herself. But part of the struggle is to see that laws are enacted because it's through laws that our rights are protected. And the other part of the struggle is to see that when our rights are violated that we can, you know, go before the courts and through the courts, get the, you know, institutions, or the government itself to change it. And for that, our rights are enforced, our rights are implemented. And these are the few cases that I have shared with you in my little effort to make you see how as lawyers and as judges, we can all be advocates for gender justice. The positions that we are in, and the profession that we are practicing these skills that we have acquired in order to advance gender justice. If we can do that, then you know, we all become part of a profession part of the society that is made that has at least beginning that process of change in our society, because when you keep struggling with the inequality in our society. You wonder how can things become different because, you know, it is really for those of us who work with the law we know how the law is not perfect the legal profession isn't perfect the judicial system isn't perfect. But for the lay person they put so much trust in the law. I believe that if a law has been enacted. If the Supreme Court says this, that that will mean you know reality that they'll be in change. And then when that doesn't happen begins their disillusionment with the entire legal system. I think there is a burden on us to see how we can do this. So closing I just want to share. I mean I want to open up to more questions I'm sure that there will be questions and when we can. You know, when I respond to it, many more aspects of the topic can be brought out therefore I want to open it up to discussion but just you know one point is when you look at the Domestic Violence Act. Prior to the domestic violence are coming into being. They have course enacted you know made the amendment to the criminal law to IPC introducing section 498 a, which has been at the end of much controversy. And people have said a lot of things about misuse the reality is there are women who are suffering from domestic violence without any justice on the one hand on the other hand is this whole perception that women are misusing the law. But the point that I want to make is that prior to a, you know, this 23rd, 2005 legislation. We had lawyers like, you know, Miss Indira jasing of lawyers collective and a senior advocate practicing in the Supreme Court and Miss Flavia Agnes, who created much lease and organization in Mumbai, and the lawyer advocate there, who both very creatively use the CPC provisions in the remedies that women want. You know, oftentimes a lot of people think that women are, you know, vindict women, you know, just want to see their husbands in prison behind bars. The reality is that women don't want that solution. What women are looking for is that the violence will stop. They just want protection from the violence. And therefore what Miss Flavia Agnes and Miss Indira jasing did was to use the CPC. The protection orders in the CPC the injunction orders in the CPC to provide the exact remedy that these women wanted. And that's the reason why you see these incorporated into the 2005 act, because again Miss Indira jasing in the lawyers collective was behind the drafting of this particular legislation. These are the examples of how the court, you know, does advocate or promote gender justice but there is of course the Tala case, you know, on the other hand, which is problematic at one level. The women of course don't want triple Tala at one sitting to be permissible. But what they don't want is a criminalization of the pronouncement of the Tala can landing all their husbands in jail, because that doesn't give the women anything at all. It's not like the divorce, you know, gets nullified as a consequence, and their husbands are back to performing their roles as husbands and you know providers in the family. Right so, but I have picked on the judgments, which are good examples of the way in which the court can intervene in order to promote an advanced gender justice. I will stop here. If there are questions I'd like to respond to them. Otherwise, of course, I'll go on for a little longer if the time permits. Yeah, thank you. As you can see on the chart itself that people have mesmerized the way you have taken things. In fact, when we had heard you that day also maybe have muted yourself. Just hold on. Yeah. I just said thank you that is all. No, no, no, but I thought that you should know. Thank you. The legal journey, the beads you have actually opened in with the threat of your knowledge. That's quite fascinating. And I've also seen like, once we discuss about posture, etc. I've seen that the rigors of that committee, since we are in the practicing side, we have seen that sometimes the committee constituted is there but it does not touch people do not are actually sensitize that or that posh committee is there. And sometimes even though that the person is being indicted because of the sexual harassment at workplace, etc. We find just because there's sensitization amongst the people that what the committee should constituted though it is a mandate that there should be a social worker. There should be a lawyer and that too on the lady lawyer. I've seen large number of places they do not even know the sensitization and people participated. And then, ultimately, they have that person go indicted by the inquiry, but ultimately, he's let off because of the technicalities. What do you feel that is the way forward as to whether you can sensitize people number one, or as to we should let go these some technicalities or it has to be made in such a fashion that people are actually aware that he cannot be let off because of some of these technicalities because whether they should be held to be directory or it has to be held mandatory. See, the thing is, there was a lot of things that were not said in the Vishakha judgment, which resulted in these loopholes being available and people conforming to the law, the word of the law rather than to the spirit of the law. So when the Supreme Court said there should be an external member, people complied with it by appointing a female doctor or somebody else who knows nothing about sexual harassment or about the Vishakha judgment. So the 2013 act actually, you know, thought, okay, let us spell out who exactly should be there. And they very clearly, like you said, you know, they should the external members should be somebody who is working on women's issues or particularly on sexual harassment, you know, or at least you know somebody who understands the law, etc. But when it trans, but the problem is in the implementation, like you said, right, they put in people members. So you can have they will say 50% women and you know the chief or the chairperson will be also women. But if none of them understand what is sexual harassment, then you do not have justice done. Now this is not something that the law can do, accepting if somebody goes to court and says, look, this is what the 2013 act says about the members. And this committee has been constituted completely in violation of that, that these members do not even know what is sexual harassment that they're not sensitized to issues of sexual harassment and therefore as a consequence, they are letting go. Another problem, of course, is in these members also not understanding what their power really is. It's a many of them act like as if they are a criminal court, where you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas it is just a civil proceeding a disciplinary matter, and where if the preponderance of doubt is in favor of the complainant, then you're supposed to find the person guilty. And yet, because these are all cases that when you talk about sexual harassment or any other crime against women, it doesn't happen in a public place 99.9% of the time. It happens in the private space. So if you're looking for the kind of proof that you know the criminal justice system requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, then it is extremely problematic. On the other hand, when you're doing this as a civil proceeding it's just like how the family courts deal with domestic violence or cruelty, and how the criminal courts deal with you know provisions like 498 a or 304 b etc. There may be granted divorce in a proceeding in the family court on the grounds of cruelty. You know if she is able to suitably show that there has been cruelty that the husband has thrown her out of the marital home, or that you know there has been violence perpetrated on her or denial of you know certain right that she has. Because if she's got to go to the session score to get justice, she might end up having you know more problems, because you'll have to show you'll have to provide evidence of that cruelty. So similarly with sexual harassment, if you do proceed under the IPC sections you know 354 a b c d etc. There might be a little more problem because you to provide evidence. On the other hand, sexual harassment at the workplace you know the 2013 act, it is easier to comply with. I think the important thing like we are doing at our universities that when you and it's I think they're in the 2013 act that you're supposed to have training for the members of the internal committee. Training about sexual harassment training about the process training about the procedure to be followed training even about how to write the report in the universities that's exactly what we are doing because we don't think that every member of the community is all sensitized. So even though they're law teachers, we believe in doing it, and you know we get people who come and explain to them using the methods of adult education to enable them to appreciate what happens when sexual harassment is perpetrated. And therefore how do you understand this and what you should be looking for. So I think you know we can't take for granted that people understand or are sensitized, we will each of the places where we have these committees constituted. It'll have to start with their training and sensitization and awareness first, and only then should they function, then we can hope to have justice done. The second challenge which personally I've felt with the professional experiences, let's assume I take an example, there's one university, let's assume it's a university. And in the garb of nomination, they will do is that they will nominate some person in a social work as well as an advocate. Now you also understand that for the sexual harassment case normally if you start off, it is on 15, 20 hearings to prove that there is a sexual harassment. A person may be feeling happy that let's assume I've been nominated that Mr. Chathwath you are doing social work, you have been nominated to the committee. But as a professional whether I would be having that much time to give 20 hearings to participate, normally what I've seen in these all these cases is that that person from the NGO or an advocate or another person of that committee is not participating in this thing because he doesn't understand the records, because probably you find a person who's in the social work just to show in the book or surface that this person has been nominated. It shows good that he's actually a social worker, but does he have the time to participate because he doesn't participate that leads to eventual the fallacies in the report. So I think that we have to look into that way also when we nominate someone. You have to ensure that he's not the other passion or above his professional and personal commitments to participate in that committee. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. I think it all reflects upon the extent to which the institutions that are constituting this committees are really committed to ensuring justice. They're really complying with these provisions, simply because you know they don't want to be seen as violating or non complying, or are they really doing this because they want to ensure justice is being done. And most people don't care, you know everybody thinks sexual harassment, you know, women should learn to tolerate it, or women should you know find it complimentary when you know men pass the sexual comments or you know, show sexual interest in them. In the consequence there is no seriousness to this they just complying with it for the name for namesake, rather than in the cause of advancing gender justice. So those are things that require you know change in the attitude of society towards women and take these offenses as serious. Because the consequences for women is preventing them, you know from making choices in a free manner. And if I'm traveling, even now at my age, even as a vice chancellor, I have to be concerned about you know who is going to be who I'm engaging with. Do I want to shake hands with them do if I'm traveling is like you know do who is going to be sitting next to me will that person keep his hands and legs to himself. So I have to also choose where I'm going, what are the things that I prefer to do not do all these and if they're young women, it's even deciding which institution you want to study in, which profession or job you want to take. And parents are concerned so they'll say you know go to a women's college, it may not be the best college for the things that I want to study in, but you'll be told to do it so under society realizes the great grave consequences for girls and women. Because of the prevalence of sexual harassment, they will not take even these legislation seriously. And that is where I think when the court reprimands judges and instructs the judicial academies and law colleges and, you know law universities to ensure that their students and these judges are sensitized. That is a message being sent out that the Supreme Court is taking this seriously. It doesn't think that you know it is just something to be ignored, or you know dealt lightly. Meaning Matthew sent a personal message, it is the lecture was very clear and it reminded to all the lawyers. And then we have a Monica Jolota on the YouTube. She's also trained me to do. She's also a deputy advocate general Punjab. She writes detailed thoughts and thank you ma'am for sharing your all the knowledge. Ma'am thank you for sharing your insights. We are actually delighted to have a different flip of the mindsets to understand the nitty gritties of law and deeper version. And tomorrow, friends will connect at 6pm to understand the professional branding through a story trailing by Heera Srivastav. So do stay connected with us at 6pm. And ma'am once again, on behalf of all those participants who have watched us live on the YouTube and subsequently will watch that. We are thankful to you. And I can say with assurance that I am saying it's one of the rare instance that the participants on the Zoom as well as on the YouTube continue to be stagnant. It means they didn't just come and go, but they kept on hearing because it was inside the session. Thank you ma'am.