The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a ban on ‘two-finger test‘ in a rape case, a move that will change the historical trajectory of rape convictions in India.
While hearing a rape murder case, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli said, “The so-called test is based on the incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. Nothing could be further from the truth – a woman’s sexual history is wholly immaterial while adjudicating whether the accused raped her.”
The “two-finger test” involves the examining doctor inserting two fingers inside the vagina of a rape survivor to assess whether the girl or woman is a “virgin” or “habituated to sexual intercourse.” The practice is unscientific and does not provide any definite information. Moreover, such ‘information’ has no bearing on an allegation of rape.
World Health Organisation (WHO) on dealing with sexual assault victims says, “There is no place of virginity (or ‘two-finger’) testing; it has no scientific validity.
Doctors suggest that the laxity of the vaginal muscle also depends on the psychological state of a person. For example, in the case of a distressed person, like a rape survivor, the muscle will appear to be tensed. The test also discredit the testimony based on the assumption that a woman with sexual history cannot claim to be raped.
‘Two-finger test’ is morally and ethically a clear violation of privacy and dignity and no doubt a horrific experience where a woman or a rape survivor is stripped of her consent.
In 2014, the Union health ministry released a document titled ‘GUIDELINES & PROTOCOLS Medico-legal care for survivors / victims of sexual violence.
The guidelines say, “Per-vagium examination commonly referred to by lay persons as ‘two-finger test’ must not be conducted for establishing rape/sexual violence and the size of vaginal introitus has no bearing on a case of sexual violence. Per-vagium examination can be done only in adult women when medically indicated.”
The guidelines also state that a rape victim’s consent (or her guardian’s, if she is minor/ mentally disabled) is necessary for any medical examination. Even if the consent is not provided, the victims cannot be denied medical treatment.
On Tuesday, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made the comments in its order restoring the conviction and sentencing of a man for the rape and murder of a minor girl in Jharkhand in November 2004.
The girl was set on fire when she tried to deny his attempts to sexually assault her. Later, she was subjected to the ‘two-finger test’ in the hospital.
The bench said,”Whether a woman is ‘habituated to sexual intercourse’ or ‘habitual to sexual intercourse’ is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the ingredients of section 375 (rape) of the IPC are present in a particular case.
image credits: Down To Earth
💫FOLLOW US FOR MORE UPDATES. ❌WE DO NOT HAVE IRRITATING AND SPAMMY NEWSLETTERS. ✅EVERYTHING IS AND WILL BE FREE FOREVER. SEE YOU AGAIN IN YOUR STORIES AND FEED 🙂
