JUSTICE IN A LABYRINTH: THE PARADOX OF LEGAL TRAUMA IN GENDER VIOLENCE ADJUDICATION

Introduction

Double Harm refers to a second-injury. Where the criminal justice system, which was established to serve victims of gender-based violence, ends up causing more harm than before, it becomes a second injury. This is the effect of a phenomenon known as double harm where law does not cure but recreates trauma. The re-evaluation of the judicial practice, evidentiary norms, and the protection of the procedure is crucial in order to make the courtroom a more trauma-responsive place.

The Law as a Site of Retraumatization

Theoretically, Indian law offers a solid framework against gender-based violence: the Indian Penal Code prosecutes sexual assault and committal of any offence against women; the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides civil remedies and POCSO protects children against any sexual offences. But the real life of the survivors is a stark contrast. The adversarial nature of the law requires the survivors to retell the intimate violence in a hostile environment, whereby their pain is turned into a performance to be decided by the court.

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) held that the survivors must be protected against further humiliation, but trial practice ignores such doctrines of the Court. The survivors are often subjected to invasive cross-examination, character assassination and long trials that drag on. Although the two-finger test has been expressly denounced in Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2013), its remnants are still present in medical tests that evaluate credibility using archaic and unconstitutional criteria.

This legal trauma is an example of institutional insensitivity: it is damage caused by those who are meant to provide protection, but instead, harm. The violence is compounded, first in the very perpetration of violence and second in its prosecution, which leaves victims both traumatized by crime and by law.

Gendered Dimensions of Legal Trauma

Legal trauma is also not homogenous; it is highly gendered and tends to be worse in the case of the most vulnerable. In the case of women survivors, the courtroom is full of patriarchal prejudices. Even so the Court, in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) believed that the rape victim by themselves is sufficient to convict the accused, in the real world, the corroboration is still implied. Silence, chastity and agreement to stereotypes have been associated with credibility, not the truth in which the survivor lives.

In reference to children, the law guarantees more protection under POCSO with the inclusion of child-friendly processes. But earthly realities are false to this vow. Research has shown that children are often interrogated in daunting court rooms and go through numerous cycles of questioning, which weaken the kids psychologically. Instead of being insulated as they should have been, they are forced to retract to the trauma on several occasions, which leaves a permanent scar on their psyche.

Not only do marginalized women and women in Dalit and Adivasi communities face violence but also they face systemic exclusion in terms of accessing justice. The overlapping vulnerabilities, i.e., gender, age, socio-economic status, hence, compound the so-called double harm. The legal proceedings continue to perpetuate inequality thereby making courts, areas where structural oppression meets personal trauma.

Towards a Trauma-Informed Jurisprudence

The problems of legal trauma cannot be solved by simple reforms, but rather a re-foundation of legal culture. Trauma-informed jurisprudence would be consistent with constitutional morality in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Firstly, there should be no compromise on procedural sensitivity. Section 327(2) CrPC in-camera trials must be firmly applied and violations should be punitive. Court officials and attorneys need to be trained to break down rape myths and question cases in a dignified, rather than a suspiciously, manner.

Secondly, there must be evidence of reforms. The insistence on the questions concerning the sexual history or previous behavior of a survivor is the sign of bad faith and the jurisprudence functioning not only without constitutional equality but also without constitutional sense. Courts need to introduce the evidentiary bar of Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, which removed such character-based questioning from practice, enabling dignity to come first and voyeuristic questions later.

Thirdly, remedies that are victim-centric ought to be increased. Retraumatization can be alleviated through psychological support services, strong witness protection programs and state-provided free legal assistance. Notably, restorative practices which anticipate healing as contrasted to adversarial conflicts can be complementary to criminal law. Through these reforms, the legal system can transform into an instrument of secondary harm which it really is, to a true protector of justice.

Conclusion: Justice Without Harm

It is no justice to leave the survivors worse off than they were in the first place. Cases of gender-based violence show that there appears to be a paradox as it produces a system in which the law itself acts complicit in injury. The acknowledgment of legal trauma as a constitutional injustice is the initial move towards its destruction. Without courts, legislatures and practitioners collectively reimagining the process through the prism of a trauma-informed approach, survivors will persist in receiving justice not as a remedy but as an injury - a maze that makes the scars deeper instead of seeing them erased.