THE language used for females in the country betrays gender insensitivity and bias. Crass sexism, outdated attitudes and misplaced ideas of moral autonomy dominate politics, the police and media. As a result, justice and equality remain out of reach for women. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling — protecting women requires a shift in mindset and in the investigation and adjudication of domestic violence “through a gender-sensitive lens” — is a ray of hope. The judgement on a case of domestic murder stresses that the tragedy is not only a woman’s killing behind closed doors, but also that the truth can be shut out; exposing it is the legal system’s duty. Domestic violence is seen as a crime that is difficult to prove. What this denotes is that a wife’s murder in private confines, controlled by the criminal, results in the destruction of evidence and silenced witnesses. Briefly, crimes in private spaces are not private matters.

Beyond sensitising the police, and holding investigating officers accountable for slipshod action, chauvinistic biases must be confronted with increased female representation in the criminal justice system. Presently, women form a sorry 2pc of the superior judiciary and less than 15pc of the subordinate judiciary. More women police personnel would mean a better first point of contact for victims. In the medico-legal and prosecution fields, their presence makes the process both survivor-centric and effective. Then there is the unfortunate fact that internalised patriarchy on the part of some women, too, worsens matters. Stereotypes are then reinforced by the media through films and plays, as well as by politicians whose erroneous notions impact both law enforcement and society. Men in power must accept that promises of prosperity will not be realised in an environment where primitive conditioning restricts female inclusion, gender sensitivity, and accountability for the callous.

Published in Dawn, September 16th, 2026