Sruthi’s case closed: Is #MeToo fading away?

Arjun Sarja 

The Bengaluru police on Wednesday gave a clean chit to Arjun Sarja in a #MeToo case. The actor was accused of sexual harassment by his co-star Sruthi Hariharan.

Three years after Sruthi filed a complaint against Sarja with the Cubbon Park Police station, the cops closed the case due to ‘lack of evidence’.

“Most of the witnesses made vague statements on the sexual harassment allegations. They didn’t have any evidence or idea about what exactly happened. Some of them weren’t aware of the incident,” said the B report filed by the police with a local court.

The development comes as a relief for Arjun Sarja, who had quashed the allegations back in 2018. The outcome, however, is a blow to the #MeToo movement, say activists in Bengaluru.

Residual evidence

The Indian justice system is developed through male eyes and that is a problem, says activist Tara Krishaswamy, co-founder of Citizens for Bengaluru and Political Shakti.

“The justice system has been built around the notion of ‘there is no body, there is no crime’. But sexual harassment mostly takes place behind closed doors. In outdoor incidents, cases happen in a flash and they don’t leave residual evidence,” she explains.

She argues that there is a big hole in the entire process of investigation of sexual harassment cases and the justice system doesn’t acknowledge it. “Gender-related crimes are committed without leaving evidence. And it becomes difficult for survivors to find support because they are going against the pillar of power. In other words, you are going against patriarchy,” she says.

In Hollywood

“In such cases, why is the onus on the victim to provide proof? When women talk about sexual harassment, why doesn’t the law consider circumstantial evidence?” asks Brinda Adige, well-known human rights activist.

She takes the case of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein to back her argument. “He was a powerful man so people didn’t speak against him. Yet, a lot of circumstantial evidence was pieced together and the court took cognisance of it,” she says.

She strongly feels that there must be reforms in the police. “Look at the way our witness protection system functions. It gives a lot of authority to the police. The investigator must provide protection to the complainant. But are the police equipped to look at cases of violence and harassment against women? How can a woman give proof or the witness speak up when their employment is under threat?”

For #MeToo cases to reach a logical conclusion, even prosecutors and courts need sensitisation, argues Brinda.

Blow to movement

A closed case will be perceived as a false case and that will not encourage other women to come out and speak about harassment against them, notes Dr Shaibya Saldanha, gynaecologist and co-founder of Enfold India, an NGO that works towards preventing child sexual abuse.

“Since sexual harassment is a private crime, there won’t be eye witnesses. You have to go through medical procedures or extremely traumatising interrogation that has no corroborating evidence,” she points out.

“I have been on sexual harassment committees. Even if the woman is proven right, she is forced to leave the company. She struggles to find a job as she is considered a trouble maker,” she says.

The investigation must be done quietly for the sake of the victims, she urges. “The media becomes the judge and bombards the victim with queries. If the case is closed without evidence, the media vilifies the survivor. It’s a vicious circle,” she says.