Dirty things - A clarification. And some more brilliance

In my previous post, I had made clear my disgust of a Judgment passed by the Her Ladyship Sadhna Jadhav of Bombay High Court on 16^th January 2017. She had recorded in her Judgment that a minor girl used to do “dirty things.”

It is with much relief and happiness that now write that following an Application by the Maharashtra State Government Her Ladyship has had to correct her Judgment. What gladdens me is that someone in the deep dark recesses of the Ministry of Justice has a brain, a spine and a sense of right and wrong. Whoever you are, Sir/Madam, take a bow. Well done indeed.

You can read the clarification here. Please do note how the cowardly and careless Judge has very conveniently thrown Dr Surekha Bajaj the supervisor of the home where the minor child was under the bus. Anyway, some honor and dignity has been restored, albeit, much after the horse has bolted.

Our Lady High Court Judges are a class apart. Not to be outdone we have a howler from Her Ladyship Justice Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar. Permit me to give you some background on Her Ladyship. The Bombay High Court website has information which I am extracting for you. Her Ladyship did her Bachelors of Arts in Journalism. Then Her Ladyship did her Law. After being appointed a Judge, Her Ladyship “was selected to participate in the Judicial Training Programme in Gender and Law at the University of Warwick, Coventry, UK meant for Indian Judicial Officers under the Indo-British Judicial Sensitization programme conducted by the British Council in Conjunation [sic] with National Judicial Academy.” She has “conducted workshops/Colloquia as Resource Person/Trainer for Judges and Lawyers on Gender Laws.”

Yes dear readers the Bombay High Court website uses the word “Conjunation”. I do not know what the word means. The Almighty Google does not have an answer either.

Anyway, Her Ladyship has pronounced Judgment on an application for bail by three men. The facts are simple and as old as the hills.You could read the entire Judgment here.

Abhinaya and Survivor [since you cannot call them Victims] were colleagues in an IT company in Pune. An office picnic was organized. Prior to the picnic, Abhinaya and Survivor went for a drink to a place referred to in the Judgment as Hotel Irish (chilly). I kid you not! This was in the afternoon. But, hold on, this gets funnier. Abhinaya has a Tuborg beer and Survivor asks for iced tea. She obviously likes the iced tea so she has 4. Soon Survivor says she is dizzy and falls unconscious. She wakes up at 12.30 am, or, in military parlance, 0030 hrs and finds that she is at Abhinaya's flat with 2 other men and another female colleague Florentina and

“her leggings were not worn inside out. Her nicker and slip were lying somewhere else. Her orange colour kurta was torn on one side. She had severe pain in abdomen, lumber portion and in private part.”  

Yes folks this is extracted from the Judgment of Her Ladyship Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, trained in gender and law in the UK. Yes, her leggings were NOT worn inside out. When you steal something are you a Nicker? What, for fucks sake is a “Nicker”??? Almighty Google tells me a Nicker is a soft whinnying sound made by a horse. The word is obviously “knicker” but who cares, who knows – certainly not a female judge educated in the UK.

Okay, I may have got a bit carried away, let us get back to the story. Survivor claimed she was raped by Abhinaya. It turns out that Survivor did not drink iced tea but, hold your breath “four long cocktail Iceland ice tea”. Yep folks that phrase is repeatedly used in Her Ladyships Judgment - long cocktail Iceland ice tea.

In the testimony given by the waiter at Hotel Irish (chilly) the fact that Survivor had four of these delicious cocktails was confirmed. Now, for those of you who may not have ever drunk a Long Island Ice Tea, I assure you, it is lethal. Correctly made a single drink is 120 mls or two large pegs of 5 white spirits – Gin, Vodka, Tequila, White Rum and Cointreau. This is topped with Coke. The drink is really delicious, but, lethal. I once had two beers and in a fit of excitement and camaraderie with HRH the Queen of Kutch’s sister, ordered one at Toto’s. I was as the phrase goes “ludak-ing”. I staggered home, like Mr. M K Gandhi, with my hands on the shoulders of two ladies. Totally inappropriate analogy, but you get the picture, vividly. I hope. Survivor had 4 long cocktail Iceland ice tea. She would have been more than “ludak-ing”.

Of course, Abhinaya said that sex was consensual, and that Survivor was not averse to drinking. A medical test was conducted on Survivor which revealed (1) that there was penetrative sex and (2) there was no alcohol in her blood. Yep, no alcohol in her blood.

You know what Her Ladyship decided?

She held that consent obtained when the Survivor was intoxicated is not consent, as Survivor is not in a proper state of mind. Hence Abhinaya should be denied bail as he was prima facie guilty of rape. I know that the laws relating to rape have been amended specifically to provide that when drunk you cannot give consent. Frankly, I agree with that. However, the medical report states that a blood sample taken 12 hours after consuming 4 long cocktail Iceland ice tea reveals no alcohol in the bloodstream.

All I can say after all this is, I cannot imagine what would be our state if our Judges did not have the privilege of training in the UK. Do Judges read what they have dictated?