Tarun Tejpal sentenced in rape case: Labelling was exactly what the survivor – alone and helpless against two of her senior colleagues back then – pointed out in her resignation letter when she mentioned “character assassination”
Thirteen years ago, a journalist reached out for help to her boss at the news magazine Tehelka, distraught that the horror she faced in the hands of Tehelka co-founder Tarun Tejpal – who was the boss of her boss, Shoma Chaudhury – had been downplayed with “tactics of intimidation, character assassination and slander”.
Today, Tejpal was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in jail for raping his junior colleague in 2013. The former Tehelka editor-in-chief was acquitted by a trial court in 2021.
The trial court’s verdict, the Bombay High Court said today, was “perverse” for falling prey to the notion that the complainant in such cases should be a “perfect victim” and conduct herself in a certain way to appear credible.
Tejpal said he will challenge the high court verdict in the Supreme Court.
The survivor in her resignation letter to Chaudhury, then managing editor, said she was “shattered” to find Chaudhury saying one thing in internal communications with her, while saying something else completely different outside on national TV.
By then, Tejpal had in public admitted to the crime.
The survivor, however, said in her resignation letter that both Tejpal and Chaudhury referred to his act of sexual violation as “an untoward incident” – which, she said, was clearly an attempt to cover up what had really occurred.
“You are now attempting to establish that Mr Tejpal has ‘another version’ of events (as surely, any sexual predator does), and that the ‘encounter’ may have been consensual or non-consensual… Mr Tejpal is now claiming that what occurred was a ‘fleeting, consensual encounter’; and that he wrote his apologies to me because of your ‘adamantine feminist principles’,” the survivor said in the letter.
Today, the Bombay High Court in its 81-page judgment expressed strong disapproval about the way the defence put the survivor in the dock and focused on her personal life. The court found it surprising the trial court “remained silent and allowed the defence to harass and humiliate her during the cross examination”.
The trial court at Goa’s Mapusa proceeded with the notion that a sexual assault survivor must behave in a stereotypical manner, and the survivor in the present case had to be a “perfect victim”, the high court said.
“The ‘perfect victim’ concept, more formally known as an ‘ideal victim’, described an unspoken cultural archetype where a person is fully believed, sympathised with and granted legitimacy only if they exhibit absolute vulnerability, complete innocence and total passivity,” the high court said.
When a survivor does not fit into this mould, then their trauma is devalued, it said.
This dangerous labelling was exactly what the survivor – alone and helpless against two of her senior colleagues back then – pointed out in her resignation letter when she mentioned “character assassination.”
“Tejpal was in a position of control and dominance over her,” the high court said, referring to the odds she faced when she began seeking justice from the same company whose owner had raped her.
The survivor in the letter said a sexual act carried out without consent cannot be justified on any basis.
“Over the past years, we have collectively defended the rights of women, written about custodial rape, sexual molestation at the workplace, spoken out harshly against the culture of victim blame and the tactical emotional intimidation and character assassination of those who dare to speak out against sexual violence,” she said in her resignation letter sent to Chaudhury.
