In the famous 1924 case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, British Judge Lord Hewart ruled that "Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
This principle emphasises that the public’s faith in the justice system can only be built if the process is not only impartial but also fair. However, based on our experiences from work, many times we have seen that justice is found in mere papers and orders, but the survivor and their family never get to see it happen. In this context, we are sharing an incident through this blog that shows how the distance between 'justice on paper' and 'justice in reality' is very wide.
Case Study
Early this year, an incident occurred with a family in a community in Delhi, where a woman domestic worker and her husband lived with their two children, a 12-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter. Both of them used to send their children to school, go to work in the morning, and return home only in the evening. Since both the parents went for work, they often left them with their close neighbours to take care of the children, and sometimes their 6-year-old daughter was left all alone at home.
One day, considering this situation as an opportunity, an 11-year-old boy living in the neighbourhood called the 6-year-old girl to his house on the pretext of playing and forcibly abused her sexually.
A few days later, the boy again sexually assaulted the girl. This time the girl's father saw it all happening. He was shocked and could not understand anything. He thought that no one would believe him, even if he disclosed this incident. So he immediately took a picture, got his daughter out of there, and brought her back home.
When the girl’s mother returned home in the evening and came to know about the incident, she was deeply disturbed. The first thing she did was bathe her daughter not once, but several times as if she wanted to wash away the horror of what had happened. After that, she went to the neighbour’s house to talk and express her anger. But the people she had always considered close flatly denied everything. Even when the father showed them the photo, they refused to accept that their son had done anything wrong. The girl’s health began to deteriorate, and after much questioning, she finally told her mother that this was not the first time. The boy would often call her over under the pretext of playing, and then behave inappropriately with her. When she refused to go, he would scare and threaten her. The girl’s mother felt completely helpless and had no idea what to do next.
Seeking support, she contacted a Pehelkaar (community leader) associated with the Martha Farrell Foundation. She reached their home immediately and advised the family to file an official complaint. The girl’s parents were frightened, so they initially refused to do so. But the mother was deeply troubled and knew that what had happened to her daughter was wrong. She kept trying to convince her partner, but the fear of defamation in society and the community held him back.
The field officer from the Martha Farrell Foundation also explained the situation several times and informed them that this was a case of sexual abuse under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and reporting it was mandatory. After understanding all this, despite opposition from her partner, household, and community, the girl’s mother dialed Child Helpline 1098 with the help of the field officer to file the complaint.
The very next day, the police arrived from the station, and with the consent of the mother and child, took them to record their statements. When the police reached their home and the station, the female officers were in plain clothes so that the girl wouldn’t feel scared and could speak openly about the crime she had faced. (It was reassuring to see that the provisions of the POCSO Act were being followed.)
The female police officer recorded the statements of the girl and her parents. As evidence, the photo clicked by the father was taken into police custody and later deleted from his phone. (According to the POCSO Act, it is strictly prohibited to keep or store any photo or video of the incident involving a minor survivor.)
Immediately after the statement, the female police officer took the girl and her parents to a government hospital, where the girl underwent a medical examination. This medical process began in the morning and continued late into the night. The tests included injury assessment, genital examination, oral examination, pregnancy test, and an HIV test. All these procedures were conducted by a female doctor, with the consent and presence of the girl and her mother.
In the evening, one forensic test remained, but no female doctor was available at that hour. The hospital administration sent a male doctor for it. Since two employees from the Martha Farrell Foundation were present, they immediately raised the question of whether a female doctor was available. The male doctor said that all female doctors’ shifts had ended. Seeing this situation, when the male doctor sought permission from the mother, she clearly refused, saying she would not allow a male doctor to examine her daughter. (According to the POCSOAct, the medical examination of any minor survivor must be conducted by a female doctor, or by a male doctor only with the consent and presence of a female nurse or the parents.)
After the medical examination, the female police officer sent the medical report and the girl’s statement to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) within 24 hours. The very next day, after the entire process, the boy, who himself was a minor, was taken for questioning by the police.
Some time later, based on the available evidence, the police filed a chargesheet. After the hearing, the court found the boy guilty and delivered the sentence. Along with this, the court directed the family to approach the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for compensation for the survivor. Shockingly, neither the survivor nor her family was present during this entire hearing.
Justice was served on paper, but the ground reality was something different. You might be wondering how everything happened so smoothly. Is our justice system really so transparent and accessible that the daughter of a domestic worker could get justice so easily? Unfortunately, the answer is “No”. On paper, though justice was served but “seeing” it happen was as difficult as spotting stars in Delhi’s smog-covered sky.
When the chargesheet was filed and the hearing date arrived, the family learned that the judge had already pronounced the verdict and the boy had confessed. To this day, the survivor or her family has not received a copy of the court’s order. No one knows what punishment the boy received. And the most shocking part is that the boy still lives in the same community, in the same house. When the woman asked in court what she was supposed to do next, the reply she received was, “You will get the compensation, won’t you? Why are you concerned about the rest?”
Even more shocking was the government’s response: “There is currently a backlog for compensation. You will have to wait at least a year.” According to a recent report by the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau), 38% of crimes against children in the country are registered under the POCSO Act. In Delhi alone, 7,769 cases were reported. Another report published by NDTV states that only about 1% of all survivors receive compensation. Meanwhile, a 2019 report based on the Supreme Court Registrar’s 2016–17 findings revealed that only 4–5% of survivors received compensation.
These numbers are not just statistics, they are warnings. They make us ask: Is our justice process, which was created for children, truly “survivor-centered”? And even if it is, does every child and their family actually have access to this justice? And are people truly aware?
Is this justice?
This also raises the question of what justice really means and who defines it. Is delivering a verdict without the survivor’s presence justice? Is it justice when the family does not receive a copy of the judgment? Is justice complete simply by giving compensation?
John Rawls, in his theory Justice as Fairness, said that justice means equality, fairness, and maximising benefits for marginalised groups. But when a domestic worker and her daughter neither saw the court proceedings nor received the verdict, nor compensation, can this justice be called fair?
So what kind of justice is this:
- Where the perpetrator roams freely in the same neighbourhood,
- Where the court pronounces a verdict without the survivor present,
- Where the family must wait years for compensation,
- And where that little girl is still looked at with suspicion, while the perpetrator’s older brothers threaten and intimidate her.
Can this compensation (which has not even been received yet) make up for the pain that little girl endured? Can it return her lost childhood? Did anyone consider how, even if she does not fully understand what happened today, its impact will weigh heavily on her mind and life when she grows up?
The community and the boy’s family still refuse to believe that it was the boy’s fault. Instead, they blame the girl and her family. No one asked where the boy had learned such a behaviour or whether our children are still far away from any sense of awareness. Has society lost its ability to distinguish between right and wrong? Or does the fault lie in our legal system, which repeatedly gives children, adults, and even the elderly the opportunity to repeatedly commit an offense? Our belief is that laws and courts will become trustworthy only when justice is not just done but also seen and felt. Because if the survivor and her family cannot “see” justice being served, then every order written on paper becomes nothing more than an incomplete promise.
