How an extrajudicial Panchayat punished both the accuser and the accused

Source: Jubair Hosen Junet on pexels.com

For a woman in Bihar’s Begusarai district, the search for justice began not at a police station or in a courtroom, but before a village panchayat, where she was allegedly accused of causing the assault and made to lick her own spit from the ground.

The case came to public attention after a video of the panchayat meeting went viral on social media in late July. Police have registered an FIR and are looking into the woman’s allegation against her neighbour as well as the “disciplinary action” meted out to her by members of the panchayat. The woman’s complaint alleges that she was raped by her neighbour on June 2 and again on June 4. In the second instance, the accused was caught escaping by members of the panchayat who then brought him back and called for a panchayat meeting to be held. According to the woman’s complaint, during the meetings on June 4 and 5, the panchayat allegedly accused her of falsely accusing the man and made her lick her own spit.

While the allegations against the accused are yet to be proven in a court of law, with many local reports suggesting that the woman and her neighbour had been seen “together”, one question still stands out. Who gave the panchayat the right to punish her?

Panchayats, both village and otherwise, are important institutions when it comes to local governance and dispute resolution. But when it comes to matters of crime, an informal setup is no substitute for due process.

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, 2018, that assemblies that act as “parallel law enforcement agencies” have no business trying to deliver what amounts to justice. In fact, it warned that any assembly that “takes upon itself to act as the judge and jury in determining the alleged anti-social elements” would “invade the domain of the law enforcing agencies and vitiate the whole process of punishment.”

A panchayat cannot be expected to take on the role of a judge in determining the veracity of a rape or sexual assault allegation because that is not how justice works. It must be investigated and proven, with evidence, and the accused must be given due process. A formal trial is necessary to establish whether a crime had occurred and to punish the guilty accordingly.

This case is not that an informal institution took the law into its hands but that, according to the woman’s complaint, she was treated more as the accused than the victim. Making a woman lick her own spit in front of people is not just humiliating. It is an unofficial punishment. Even more worryingly, such methods can act as a deterrent for other women, as they send out a message that speaking up would result in this kind of public shaming.

A woman reporting a sexual assault already faces a slew of barriers, starting from the stigma around such acts. If the law, or even an unofficial system, punishes the woman for speaking up, it would only discourage other victims from coming forward. According to the woman’s complaint, she reportedly approached the police after returning home from her husband’s place. The police then filed an FIR and arrested one person in the case; they are still looking for the main accused. This goes to show that a formal, reliable system is vital in these matters.

India already has a formal legal framework for dealing with allegations of sexual violence.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into force on July 1, 2024, defines rape and prescribes punishment for it. Sections 63 and 64 deal with rape and punishment for rape, respectively, and prescribe punishments for it. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) deals with assault/criminal force on women and sexual intercourse or other acts of a sexual nature without the consent of the woman, with the latter section also requiring investigation into the allegations.

The investigation process for rape and sexual assault is also laid down in the BNSS. According to Section 167 of the BNSS, the investigating authority should complete its probe into the accused for specified sexual offences within the stipulated timeframe.

Of course, this does not always work due to various reasons, including police apathy, societal stigma, and threats of family honour and the like. Nevertheless, circumventing due process and handing out punishments according to “informal” institutions does not solve the problem.

The incident also raises a broader question about the role of social reputation and “family honour” in the way allegations of sexual misconduct are handled in close-knit communities.

In a lot of close-knit communities, the idea of “family honour” holds more importance than any individual’s well-being. Once the reputation of the family is tainted, it is difficult to restore, which is why such allegations are dealt with as “family matters”. The identity or social standing of the accused should not determine whether an allegation is properly investigated.

Information suggesting that the woman and the accused knew each other or had been seen together does not, by itself, establish whether the encounter was consensual. That question must be determined through evidence and due process rather than community assumptions.

In short, a panchayat is not a court, and neither is it qualified to determine criminal acts, especially serious ones like rape.

The Begusarai incident is not occurring in a vacuum. Reports from Bihar have previously documented cases in which village bodies allegedly subjected women to public humiliation over accusations involving sexual relationships or assault. These cases point to a broader problem: when community reputation becomes more important than individual rights, informal bodies can turn social pressure into punishment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that assemblies cannot act as law-enforcing agencies. It is therefore illegal for these committees to take the law into their own hands. The problem then is one of law and order, not one of tradition or culture. After all, communities can solve many disputes, but when it comes to determining guilt, it is necessary to involve law enforcement agencies. This is especially true in sexual assault cases, where community members can use “family honour” as a justification to punish the victim as much as the accused or even more.

Panchayats can play an important role in local governance and the resolution of certain community disputes. But that role has clear limits. Allegations of serious crimes must be handled by the institutions empowered to investigate and adjudicate them. That said, when the rights of a woman are being questioned, her right to privacy, dignity, and safety should be prioritised. Especially in sexual assault cases, the woman must be able to report the matter to the police or other law enforcement agencies without harassment, threat, or pressure from society and family. Local authorities should ensure that women do not face any kind of retaliation or humiliation. And if they do, those responsible must be held accountable for threatening a victim’s privacy, safety, and well-being.

In short, law enforcement agencies must step up to ensure that women can report crimes of a sexual nature without fear.

The most disheartening part of this incident is that the woman went from seeking justice for one crime to facing allegations for another. After all, the truth does have to be out one way or the other. Whether a sexual assault has taken place must be proven, with evidence and due process. But what the panchayat is attempting to do is far more insidious. It is taking matters of law and justice into its own hands and punishing people by its own rules and regulations, which are far from reliable.

A panchayat is not a court, and neither should it be one.

References:

. . .