Listen to this article:

This is the second part of a three-part series. Read part one.

The Bombay high court’s judgment in the Tarun Tejpal case is more than just a major decision on rape law. It reflects the tensions of a society that has undergone rapid social, economic and cultural transformation over the past two decades, compelling courts to interpret constitutional principles within multiple and often conflicting social realities.

This 3-part series does not seek to revisit the facts of the case or opine upon the correctness of the judgment. Instead, it uses the judgment as a point of departure to examine larger constitutional questions that have received little attention in public discourse.

The Bombay high court’s judgment in the Tejpal case firmly situates Indian rape jurisprudence within an important international constitutional movement. As discussed in the first article of this series, courts across Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Scandinavia have progressively dismantled the stereotype of the “perfect victim”, replacing assumptions about female behaviour with the constitutional principles of autonomy, dignity and affirmative consent.

Yet comparative jurisprudence has one inherent limitation. Law travels more easily than society. Judicial principles may be borrowed, legislative reforms enacted and constitutional doctrines adopted. Social transformation, however, follows its own rhythm. It is shaped by history, economics, culture, education and lived experience. It cannot simply be imported.

That distinction is particularly significant for India. Most Western democracies evolved towards contemporary consent jurisprudence after several decades of gradual social change. The sexual revolution, women’s economic participation, changing family structures, public conversations around sexuality and educational reform preceded many legal developments. Law largely consolidated an already evolving social reality.

India’s experience has been fundamentally different. Our constitutional vocabulary has evolved with remarkable speed; our social vocabulary has not. This is not because Indian society is resistant to change, but because it is changing simultaneously in several directions. Any meaningful analysis of consent in contemporary India therefore requires a layered sociological lens, one that recognises the intersecting influences of class, caste, gender, religion, region, migration and economic mobility rather than searching for a single explanatory narrative.

The last three generations have witnessed transformations unprecedented in Indian history. Economic liberalisation fundamentally altered patterns of employment and migration. Women entered universities and professions in unprecedented numbers. Small towns became connected to metropolitan labour markets. The digital revolution collapsed geographical boundaries. Social media and global entertainment exposed young Indians to ideas about relationships, sexuality and personal autonomy that earlier generations rarely encountered.

These developments did not merely change behaviour. They relocated millions of Indians into entirely different social environments. The better description I prefer is not social change but cultural migration. Migration usually refers to movement across geography. Here it refers to movement across behavioural worlds.

Also read: ‘Freedom........

© The Wire