Summary
Miss Chakraborty, in a criminal complaint, alleged that she began an affair in April 1989 with Chakraborty while he was a lecturer and she was a student at Baptist College in Kohima, Nagaland. She asserted Gautam professed his love and deceived her into sexual intercourse with false assurances that he would marry her after receiving his parents’ consent. When she became pregnant in September 1993, he coerced her into a secret marriage ceremony conducted with the appearance of authenticity, well-knowing it was invalid, then convinced Chakraborty to have an abortion, and again pressured another abortion in 1994. Subsequently, in 1995, he abandoned her for a lecture position in Assam. In 1995, Chakraborty filed a criminal complaint against Gautam in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in Kohima. She claimed Gautam caused her to miscarry/abort her pregnancies, induced her to deliver property, induced cohabitation through an unlawful marriage, conducted a fraudulent marriage ceremony, and subjected her to cruelty, causing her severe mental and physical suffering, in violation of Sections 312, 420, 493, 496, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Gautam’s attempt to quash the complaint was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court, and his re-petition in the Indian Supreme Court was also dismissed. Thereafter, the Indian Supreme Court, taking notice of Chakraborty’s factual allegations in her criminal complaint, examined its ability to compel Gautam’s payment of maintenance costs while the criminal proceedings were pending. Gautam denied all allegations in the complaint, and offered proof of his current unemployment and thus inability to compensate Chakraborty. The Court noted its expansive authority under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to enforce and protect individual’s fundamental rights, including its power to award compensation for violations, even if Chakraborty did not raise a fundamental rights issue. It found that Gautam’s actions violated Chakraborty’s fundamental right to liberty, and the Article 21 right to life, defined as the right to live with human dignity. Noting the social barriers women face in India, and particularly the psychological and social consequences for rape victims, the Court ordered the creation of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to cover losses experienced by victims of sexual assault. It also issued a set of guidelines to help indigent rape victims who cannot afford medical, psychological and legal services consistent with the Principles of UN Declaration of Justice for victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985. Finally, the Court ordered Gautam to pay Rs. 1000 per month in maintenance costs for Chakraborty’s livelihood during the pending criminal case, starting from the date the complaint was filed.
