Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

genericusername123 t1_iuhc6k9 wrote

Any judge who ordered such a test needs a 4-finger version to prove how big of an asshole they are

751

[deleted] t1_iuhcszd wrote

[removed]

142

barath_s t1_iuhkoow wrote

FYI : The SC judges are slamming the 'test', not ordering it....

They are ordering the government to remove it from the curriculum of govt & private medical college study materials among other actions.

> The practice has no scientific basis to ascertain the sexual history of women, and it instead re-traumatises them, the Supreme Court said as it ruled that any individual conducting this test on a survivor will be held guilty of misconduct

83

genericusername123 t1_iuhn2zl wrote

Right, but if it made it to the supreme court then it must have been part of a previous case by lower court judges. I'm talking about those guys.

61

barath_s t1_iuhnttl wrote

A trial court convicted a person of rape and murder.

A jharkhand state high court acquitted him.

The national supreme court overturned the high court ruling and issued a slew of directives, slamming anyone who conducted such tests.

--

It doesn't say much about the high court ruling or case but my WAG is that the high court taking it into account is horrendous, but doesn't mean they ordered it.

32

Winds_Howling2 t1_iuik0kk wrote

Just correcting the other comment,

Before 1979, United Kingdom followed a protocol for medical examination of women who were immigrating to their country to marry their fiancées. This protocol would have gone on forever if an Indian woman hadn’t raised her voice after being examined in a manner which not only breached her privacy but also insulted her dignity.

On 24th January, 1979, an Indian woman landed at the Heathrow Airport. She was immigrating to London to marry her fiancée who was a British of Indian origin. At that time, people entering Britain didn’t need any visa if they were going to marry their fiancées within 3 months. But, the Indian lady had to undergo an extensive medical examination onto her plans to settle in Britain. The immigration officer was doubtful that this was her first marriage and was somewhat sure of her having children already. This may have occurred because of the age of the woman (Well, men can marry when they want to marry. A 35 year single woman is still not acceptable).

A week later, this practice made headlines in one of the famous newspapers of London thus exposing the practice of Virginity test, also known as the two finger test. Immediately, disciplinary action was ordered against the immigration officials who were suspected of having carried out these tests. Irony was that the newspaper article recorded a statement by Indian High Deputy commissioner at that time, where he had asked the British government to ban this practice as it was outrageous and was carried nowhere else in the world.

https://sayfty.com/do-you-know-about-the-two-finger-test/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/08/virginity-tests-immigrants-prejudices-britain

30

sawatte_no_ii_desu_k t1_iuiwenn wrote

Appeals courts don't specify the finger test. It is banned, and classified as a medical malpractice since at least 2013.

The doctor who did the examination did not follow the correct procedure, because inserting two fingers into the victim's genitals to check her virginity is prohibited.

19

Thykothaken t1_iuk6zfd wrote

Eewww jfc I just now, reading your comment, realised what they meant by 2-finger-test 😫 what absolute horrid fucking scum I hope they realise what they are before they die

8

Extinct1234 t1_iuhcea7 wrote

The title is a bit short on details. Article copy/pasta:

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today slammed the use of "two-finger test" in cases of rape and sexual assault and asked the centre to ensure the practice is stopped. The practice has no scientific basis to ascertain the sexual history of women, and it instead re-traumatises them, the Supreme Court said as it ruled that any individual conducting this test on a survivor will be held guilty of misconduct.

"It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped merely because she is sexually active," the top court said.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made these observations while restoring conviction in a rape case.

The bench overturned a Jharkhand High Court's ruling acquitting a rape and murder convict, and upheld a decision of a trial court holding him guilty.

The top court directed the centre and the states to review curriculums in all government and private medical colleges and have the study materials on "two-finger test" removed.

The Supreme Court also asked the health ministry to conduct workshops for health service providers in all states in order to communicate the appropriate procedure for examining the survivors of sexual assault.

In 2013 too, the Supreme Court had held that "two-finger test" violated a woman's dig

443

Ozryela t1_iui5w9r wrote

So the appeals court overturned a conviction for rape and murder based on this test. And the Supreme Court now calls bullshit.

That's good. But I don't understand how, even if you use this test, how it could lead to acquittal for murder. You can consent to sex but not murder.

191

ApplesOffATree t1_iui93sm wrote

If she hadn’t resisted the “consensual” sex he wouldn’t have had to murder her of course. /s

86

TheLongAndWindingRd t1_iuib78h wrote

Two charges. You can be acquitted of the rape but not the murder charge. It's not like acquittal or conviction on one necessitates the other.

40

LOL_Murica t1_iuh952j wrote

Whoa whoa whoa. So, basically, rape to “test” for rape? I…but…how…I’m going back to bed for a few years.

260

HotSteak t1_iuhbkwi wrote

Looking at the Indian Supreme Court Case--it looks like a man was convicted of rape, appealed and as part of the appeal they inserted 2 fingers into the victim's vagina and found that she was 'loose enough' and therefore couldn't have been raped and thus overturned the rape conviction. This Supreme Court decision means that he's once again convicted of rape.

282

dissentrix t1_iuhn0p4 wrote

Well, that's disturbing

112

stackjr t1_iujxtmg wrote

The amount of rapes that happen in India is beyond disturbing. It appears that a lot of Indian men see the women as nothing more than animals that can talk.

18

Avakayi t1_iuk85za wrote

The amount of rapes in India is faaaaaaar lower than in most other countries. It's not even in top 50 when seeing through per capita.

−17

stackjr t1_iukanff wrote

*Reported rapes are lower

FTFY.

17

Avakayi t1_iukatls wrote

Saying reported rapes are lower is no different than saying aliens are abducting people in farmlands. If you gonna start a hypothetical scenarios then everyone else can as well.

−14

stackjr t1_iukb2o8 wrote

So you are saying that rape isn't not an under reported crime in India?

Your analogy is also absolutely horrible.

3

Avakayi t1_iukbiot wrote

Rapes are underreported in every country. There is no proper unbiased method to determine how many those under reported ones are.

Or perhaps are you saying in all the 50+ countries that are above India in r@pe numbers no country has a single instance of underreporting ? Cuz that would be truly ridiculous.

−8

ffnnhhw t1_iujwzzt wrote

>she was 'loose enough' and therefore couldn't have been raped

WTF am I reading?

24

Jonnny t1_iujty0e wrote

I'm too gobsmacked to even be angry. WTF. As if having a larger vagina means you can't be raped. Not to mention it's fucked up in a million other ways.

17

ThrowawayTwatVictim t1_iujxcxi wrote

I started seeing red when I finished reading it. People like this should not be in positions of power, yet they gravitate towards them.

8

Captain__Spiff t1_iuhbwzh wrote

"When she drowns she's not a witch"

144

Pecncorn1 t1_iuhvr7e wrote

I'm not even sure I know what to think that this would even be a thing in the 21st century.

53

ValyrianJedi t1_iui852e wrote

India can be wild. I have to travel a good bit for work, and never in my life have I seen somewhere else that is such a juxtaposition of extraordinary wealth, modernity, and opulence all right alongside equally extreme poverty, squalor, and dark age bullshit.

63

Pecncorn1 t1_iuijbne wrote

Yeah I did three months there in the early 80s I can only imaging what it has come to now.

8

1bir t1_iuhd6yf wrote

Sanity prevails... finally

49

outerproduct t1_iuhnj8p wrote

Looks like someone needs a biology lesson.

48

Irilieth_Raivotuuli t1_iui1blj wrote

It has nothing to do with biology. They knew all along. This was to 'encourage' women to not report rapes since they'd face a sexual assault when they went to report the rape, and there have been plenty of cases where women who reported rape were raped again in the police station and thrown back to streets.

102

YagaDillon t1_iui0xpq wrote

What is it with the Indian Supreme Court? They consistently yield progressive judgements in the face of... Indian conservatives, who hold the power, as I understand it, basically? Could someone versed in Indian judisprudence explain, or at least point me to a good link, how such a thing occurred - how did these people get elected?

41

SmallWhiteShark t1_iui9g2e wrote

Indian judges are not elected by politicians. Judges themselves select further judges. Only the Chief justice of India(CJI) is elected by the government to some extent, but even that person is from one of the supreme court judges. That being said, a judge can still have his own bias and political leanings. There was a case where a judge was allowed to preside over a rape case, where he himself was the accused.

The judgements like this one are dependent a lot on the individual judge's(or the board's) interpretation of the laws. Justice Chandrachud appears to me as a progressive judge, based on the judgements he has given so far.

Indian laws are weird when looked as a group. While marital rape is not outlawed, you have rape on promise of marriage, where one can be booked for rape if he does not marry his partner. Homosexuality is legal, but sodomy is not.

44

Winds_Howling2 t1_iuilv4i wrote

The word "sodomy" is severely outdated, and the laws pertaining to it can safely be relegated as one of those weird "trivia" laws, provided that homosexuality as a whole is decriminalised.

Like, you can't secure a conviction if you prove before a Court that ass-insertion took place.

8

phormix t1_iujwp01 wrote

Interesting enough, I believe that particular word/charge actually applies to a sticking the make member anywhere that's not a vagina.

So even those who push for such laws because they're homophobic are probably unwittingly in violation of them if they've ever received/provided a BJ

1

sawatte_no_ii_desu_k t1_iuiz4ma wrote

> Only the Chief justice of India(CJI) is elected by the government to some extent, but even that person is from one of the supreme court judges.

Wrong, completely wrong.

The Supreme Court introduced the Collegium system (which does not exist in any statute, only in case law), made up of the Chief Justice of India and the four seniormost judges to determine who can be elevated to the Supreme Court and who can become the next CJI. For the appointment of High Court judges, the CJI of the High Court concerned is also invited to the collegium.

However, these recommendations are then sent to the union government, i.e. the executive. The executive can approve, hold or reject nominations. If the executive approves, the names are sent to the President for appointment.

For the Chief Justice of India in particular, so far the convention of seniority has been followed, in which the collegium recommends the next eligible seniormost judge to serve as the Chief Justice. Eligibility in this sense that they have to be younger than 65 years old when they take office. The current CJI, UU Lalit, will only serve in his position for about 2.5 months, having been appointed on 27th August, 2022 and vacating the office on 9th November, 2022.

>rape on promise of marriage

This only applies to wilful fraud, not genuine inability.

8

College_Prestige t1_iuipnk2 wrote

> Indian judges are not elected by politicians. Judges themselves select further judges.

On one hand, keeping selection out of politicians is great. However, I'm wondering if there is some sort of check against this because having judges select each other with no oversight seems like a terrible idea.

5

nice_cunt69 t1_iuitnmy wrote

You're right, it has led to a culture of nepotism in the judiciary. But I also want to avoid an American scenario with politicians choosing the judges, idk what the right answer is.

15

EDMlawyer t1_iuj5nya wrote

Canadian courts have a good balance I think. A shortlist is created by experts of qualified candidates, the elected officials appoint from that list. A judicial review committee exists to evaluate misconduct, and the Chief judge of each (lower) jurisdiction can decline renewals of appointments.

The lower level elected US judges is a bad idea IMO. The whole point of a judiciary is to not be beholden to any interest other than the law - be it public opinion, the party in power, what have you. It's a philosophical issue I have though.

10

Skeletore-full-power t1_iujfm9t wrote

> The lower level elected US judges is a bad idea IMO.

the idea is that their are 50 states each with their own laws and things. so electing judges that represent your states interest makes sense. in canada isn't there no distinction between criminal courts, it's all federal isn't it.

1

College_Prestige t1_iujgfjl wrote

Judges are harsher near election season. It's a terrible idea to have elections for judicial posts. 2 people committing identical crimes under the same legal environment shouldn't get different punishments

2

Skeletore-full-power t1_iuji2a4 wrote

that's more a prosecutor problem than a judge problem. a judge doesn't have to punish any crime if none come to their table.

look at those california prosecutors who just refuse to prosecute.

2

Skeletore-full-power t1_iujfbqe wrote

america has local elected judges and federal appointed judges. so a state like california has all the judges elected from local traffic court all the way to state supreme court. so their is some balance to it since local judges are who's going to be deciding factors in your day to day life.

2

rangiton t1_iuiu1wx wrote

It is though, they high-hold themselves as demi-gods, untouchable by the general public and many of them order stupid judgements. In city/district level courts, it's even worse, they don't even come to courts on time, don't talk, don't even hear cases properly, give barely 5-7 minutes to cases, even as serious as murder or rape and then, just give post-date it for 40-50 days and you can't complain anywhere. This is why people fear the system, it's so slow and stupid that it takes years for any kind of case, no matter how truth your case holds or how bigger of a victim you are. Also, rampant corruption and nepotism.

Edit: Forgot one thing, you tweet negative about them and they hold you for contempt so no, you can't even point fingers at their incompetency.

5

Various-Way-7219 t1_iuiuqhc wrote

There are. It's with president of India, a political position. Who is not part of executive branch, that's PM and cabinet.

5

Avakayi t1_iuk8q6e wrote

You mean progressive like the wife doesn't have to maintain monagomy and can have have as many lovers as she wants type progressive ? I'm glad that he is bring some good changes but that doesn't mean he is not a extreme sexist towards men.

−5

slipnips t1_iuidavt wrote

Conservatives vs liberal isn't really the best way to describe politics in India. While a reasonably conservative party is in power at the moment, politics in India isn't really ideologically polarized. In any era, there's one party that sets the narrative of the day, while the others try to mould themselves to fit the trend in order to avoid being left out. However, fundamentally, none of them want to upset the apple cart and challenge the core beliefs held by Indian voters, so most parties are conservatives in that sense. In fact, one of the largest opposition parties at present, the Indian National Congress, had gone to the extent of retroactively modifying the Indian constitution to nullify a progressive supreme court judgement, in order to pander to vocal islamic voters. The BJP, although they hold hardline Hindu ideals, have almost always toed the line when the supreme court has recommended progressive steps.

27

YagaDillon t1_iuip4kl wrote

Thank you! That's very interesting. So, how important is this particular ruling in the grand scheme of things?

4

slipnips t1_iuiug0y wrote

It's somewhat important, but not terribly, as most places don't carry out this test anyway. However, some places clearly still do, so it's important to end this practice to offer a modicum of dignity to the victims. It's easier said than done, as law enforcement is rather lax in rural areas where such tests might be common. At least, with government regulations coming in, such practices might be progressively eradicated at government-run hospitals, which, IIUC, rape victims are mandated to visit for clinical assessment.

10

nice_cunt69 t1_iuitumu wrote

Not very much. It wasn't a widely used practice anyway, tho I may be wrong on this, so this is just for those remaining regressive judges who still believed in it.

4

Ozryela t1_iui6eml wrote

> how did these people get elected?

They didn't. India doesn't elect judges, far as I can tell.

11

redditigon t1_iuivg0k wrote

Who elects judges!?

1

tkbhagat t1_iuj1jkh wrote

They elect themselves, through a collegium. They recommend each other, and the executive i.e. The President appoints them. So, if you are a highly educated lawyer, well connected or someone with extraordinary seniority in State courts then you are given a priority. Other SC judges recommend you for a position as a judge in the SC itself.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

5

Ozryela t1_iuj3bib wrote

Presumably whatever country the person I replied to is from, since they seemed to think electing judges is normal. I am guessing the US, since they elect at least some of their judges (but not the supreme court ones).

2

QuotheFan t1_iuicayk wrote

Out of the Superme Court, Indian Judiciary isn't all that great and even for Supreme Court, there has been a tussle over the appointment of judges between the existing judiciary and the government. The election of these judges is fairly complicated and requires both the government and the judiciary to work hand in hand.

The primary reason why you find Indian Judiciary coming up with really progressive judgements is because of DY Chandrachud. He is also the upcoming Chief Justice and over all, seems to be a really fantastic guy.

8

arunkmsn t1_iuio60u wrote

But all judges including Chandrachud are sons and daughters of previous Supreme Court judges. They appoint each other within a clique. Chandrachud has studied in Harvard and has ambitions of applying the woke identity methodologies to Indian scenario without any serious original research on local context. So he definitely appears to be “progressive” as defined by academics in the US university

−2

BenTVNerd21 t1_iuk7iam wrote

> how did these people get elected?

Electing or letting politicians directly appoint judges is crazy.

3

larrthemarr t1_iujpv6k wrote

For those interested in a bit of history, the "two-finger test" became institutionalized in India thanks to, you know it, the British.

Employees of British embassies in India would regularly stick their fingers in Indian women looking to emigrate to be with their British husbands. The practice was still in place well into the 1970s. The last known official incident in the UK was in 1979 when an immigration officer at Heathrow airport performed the test on an arriving Indian woman.

The practice ended in the UK only after Asian and African women organizations protested and blocked Heathrow airport and London main streets, forcing Home Office to yield to public pressure and stop the practice.

14

kolembo t1_iuhqv4z wrote

Even the title is offensive

11

autotldr t1_iuhcyi9 wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 63%. (I'm a bot)

> The Supreme Court today slammed the use of "Two-finger test" in cases of rape and sexual assault and asked the centre to ensure the practice is stopped.

> The practice has no scientific basis to ascertain the sexual history of women, and it instead re-traumatises them, the Supreme Court said as it ruled that any individual conducting this test on a survivor will be held guilty of misconduct.

> A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made these observations while restoring conviction in a rape case.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Court^#1 Supreme^#2 states^#3 test^#4 rape^#5

9

SpaceMonkey1900 t1_iuieltl wrote

Egalitarianism is a joke in a country that is patriarchal and uses a caste system to determine superiority over each other.

You can't get forwards motion from a horse that walks backwards. India is decades behind when it comes to equality and secularism. the people don't have access to the climate and education required to foster it. This is due to the sheer number of ignoramuses that are still present and pandered to for votes. Lopsided is a good word for it.

6

Avakayi t1_iuk9q0d wrote

You mean caste system that reserves more than 50% of seats in education, govt jobs and even for political leaders for lower caste people. And the rest 50% if for merit students only meaning if a lower caste person gets good marks he will not be selected upon the reservation. Or patriarchal in the sense that a stranger women can accuse you of rape and without any evidence provided and without any prior investigation the cops can come and arrest you ? And the only bail possible is magistrate one which itself will take 3-4 days, so if the guy is arrested on Friday with no evidence and just based of hearsay then he will have to stay locked up for weeks before he gets bail. Until a few years ago adultery was a crime in India but it is a crime only for men. ACC to constitution Women were angel being who can do no wrong. Even today india doesn't recognise male rape victims. The only accepted definition of rape in india is forceful penetration.

I'm glad the supreme court is issues new laws to help citizens doesn't mean they aren't extremely sexists towards men.

3

WhyEggSoTasty t1_iuis9gu wrote

What the fuck. Seriously.. what?

How in anyone's mind can this be ok or valid.

6

[deleted] t1_iuhcejy wrote

Some of these laws could be part of Indian penal Code written in the Victorian Era by the colonial rulers. It will take time to spot them and remove them. That is the whole reason it went to SCI (to evaluate if it is constitutional). Same process by which sodomy was made “non illegal”

5

[deleted] t1_iuhokvd wrote

[deleted]

37

Nopes_alot_ t1_iuhsbph wrote

The Supreme Court of the United States overturning Roe versus Wade, Re-empowered abortion laws in some states, that were/are still on the books. That’s 170 years, 75 years is not hard for me to believe at all.

(Edited to make sense lol)

7

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iuifudm wrote

Not every problem modern India has is the result of being a British colony. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the problems of modern India can be fully laid at the feet of India.

10

Ivanthegorilla t1_iuj68et wrote

just when I thought india was already awful I find out about this existing fucking gross india

4

ItemsForBabyHans t1_iuk213m wrote

This is bad practice. In India this practice should be banned.

3

Dynasuarez-Wrecks t1_iukacha wrote

I don't know what a "two finger test" is. Is it as outrageously awful as I presume it is?

3

Ivanthegorilla t1_iuj6d7e wrote

india officially doesnt disserve the beautiful and kind women they have

−7

notenoughroomtofitmy t1_iuk987p wrote

Lol, showed this comment to my very Indian wife, she says it has major white knight energy. Glad I’m not the only one.

My wife and I both appreciate your concern for our women, and believe with all our heart that you extend this concern for all women. If you’re American, we hope you’re fighting as strongly against the massive war against female autonomy and self-agency your country is waging on in its women in the name of conservatism. Hell, there are plenty of articles online demanding to know why Virginity Tests happen in the US. I hope you’re as vocal about this, my fellow ally of women.

India took a good step here. The post is supposed to be uplifting. God forbid anyone try to improve, right? Only cuz you have a few decades headstart over treating half your population better. Truth is none of us can ever claim to deserve our wonderful women, but they gotta live here among us, and we gotta fight to make this world better for them, one step at a time.

7

Avakayi t1_iuk9trj wrote

A stranger women can accuse you of rape and without any evidence provided and without any prior investigation the cops can come and arrest you ? And the only bail possible is magistrate one which itself will take 3-4 days, so if the guy is arrested on Friday with no evidence and just based of hearsay then he will have to stay locked up for weeks before he gets bail. Until a few years ago adultery was a crime in India but it is a crime only for men. ACC to constitution Women were angel being who can do no wrong. Even today india doesn't recognise male rape victims. The only accepted definition of rape in india is forceful penetration.

I'm glad the supreme court is issues new laws to help citizens doesn't mean they aren't extremely sexists towards men.

−4