Original post here.
In most parts of the civilized world, a criminal is supposed to get no special treatment just for being female. Not so in India.
The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in India, a legacy of colonial times, defines the processes during criminal trials. One of the most important concepts in a criminal trial is that of “bail”. After a case has been registered with the police, but before one’s possible conviction, the accused can be arrested and subsequently released on “bail”: free, but commanded to follow the jurisdiction of the court and to participate in the trial.
Women in India have a special, not-very-well-known provision in the CrPC. In section 437 of CrPC, which pertains to the criteria when a person can be granted bail, contains this White Knight exception:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person … be released on bail it such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm
For another example, let’s study section 160 of CrPC about the police interrogation of witnesses. It is common knowledge that the police in India indulges in torture of undertrials. But instead of fixing the police to treat all under-trials in a humane manner, women have been given a special exception:
Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
So women are treated as juveniles or invalids, but we don’t see any feminists protesting against this “inequality”. The reason is simple: Feminism is not about equality. It is about female entitlement at the cost of society. A feminist never protests against an inequality when it is in favor of women. In fact, they actively campaign for such unequal treatments. In their twisted minds, the prevalence of the mythical “patriarchy” implies that a woman needs to be given special treatment, to the extent that even if she is accused of a crime, she should be dealt with more leniently than men.
In recent times, a woman accused of murder tried to avail of the earlier loophole in the case of Meenu Dewan vs State on 13 January, 2009 but the courts have wised up and have their own tricks to thwart the duplicity of unscrupulous women:
… merely because the petitioner is a woman does not entitle her for bail under proviso to Section 437 but the nature and gravity offense and heinousness of the offense also has to be considered
But one cannot disregard the White-Knight attitudes of the framers of our laws. It is high time people are treated equally, fairly and humanely before the law.
But one must remember: it will be naivete of the highest order to look toward feminists to support this goal of equality.