Category: Volume 6 and Issue 10 of 2026

“THINK ABOUT YOUR FUTURE”: POLICE DISCOURAGEMENT AND VICTIM-BLAMING IN SEXUAL OFFENCE CASES

AUTHOR – SAMIKSHAA, STUDENT AT PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

BEST CITATION – SAMIKSHAA, “THINK ABOUT YOUR FUTURE”: POLICE DISCOURAGEMENT AND VICTIM-BLAMING IN SEXUAL OFFENCE CASES, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (10) OF 2026, PG. 19-26, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I103

Abstract

For countless women, the first battle after sexual violence is not fought in a courtroom. It is fought at the police station. It begins when a survivor, already carrying the weight of trauma, gathers the courage to speak, only to be met with doubt, moral scrutiny, discouragement, or questions that quietly place her conduct on trial. Although Indian law mandates the registration of First Information Reports in cognizable offences, the lived realities of many survivors reveal a troubling gap between legal guarantees and institutional practice.

This paper examines victim-blaming at the FIR stage as a form of institutional violence that often precedes formal legal proceedings. Drawing upon statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements, empirical studies, and feminist legal scholarship, it argues that survivors are frequently compelled to defend their choices, movements, relationships, and respectability before their complaints are even taken seriously. In doing so, institutions shift attention away from the perpetrator and towards the survivor, reinforcing deeply embedded patriarchal norms that continue to shape responses to sexual violence.

The paper contends that such practices are not merely instances of individual insensitivity, but manifestations of structural inequality within the criminal justice system. When survivors are advised to “think about their future,” protect family honour, or compromise rather than pursue legal remedies, access to justice becomes conditional upon conformity with patriarchal expectations of womanhood.

A woman reporting sexual violence is not seeking moral approval. She is invoking a constitutional right. This paper therefore advocates for trauma-informed policing, sustained gender sensitisation, and greater institutional accountability, while emphasizing a simple yet often forgotten principle: survivors need justice, not judgment; empathy, not suspicion; and institutions that listen before they lecture.

Keywords: Access to Justice, Feminist Jurisprudence, Gender Sensitisation, Institutional Patriarchy, Police Discouragement, Sexual Violence, Survivor-Centric Justice, Victim-Blaming.

LEGAL ISSUES IN OWNERSHIP AND PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE: A CASE STUDY ON TAJ MAHAL

AUTHOR – GOWTHAM BK, STUDENT AT ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE OF LAW

BEST CITATION – GOWTHAM BK, LEGAL ISSUES IN OWNERSHIP AND PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE: A CASE STUDY ON TAJ MAHAL, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (10) OF 2026, PG. 13-18, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The Taj Mahal is one of the UNESCO World Heritage sites that is legally protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act), and is under the state custodianship. But the ownership of the Taj Mahal has been in conflict between the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Uttar Pradesh Waqf Board, and the issue was contested in the courts. The UP Waqf Board claims that the monument is a waqf property (Islamic religious endowment), but the courts have strongly emphasized and held that a monument of national importance, without having provided clear and credible evidence, cannot be handed over to any religious or private entity. This is to stress that the Taj Mahal belongs to the nation and not to any private or religious entity.

Along with the ownership issues, preservation issues, including air pollution, industrial emissions, and climate impacts, surrounding Taj Mahal led to the landmark public interest case of MC Mehta vs UOI (Taj Trapezium case), which addressed industrial pollution affecting the monument, leading to strict regulatory controls around the monument and the creation of the Taj Mahal Trapezium zone (TTZ).

This Research paper analyzes the legal conflicts surrounding ownership and preservation of cultural heritage in India using the Taj Mahal as a case study. This synopsis hypothesizes that there is a thin evolving line between religious property claims and the state’s heritage preservation of the Taj Mahal under property and constitutional law. It formulates research questions on ownership disputes, statutory protection, and judicial-environmental interventions. The research adopts a doctrinal and qualitative methodology, with its sources primarily from articles and journals available online.

Keywords – Taj Mahal, Waqf Board, TTZ, AMASR Act, ASI, NMA.

CASTE-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN INDIA

AUTHOR – G R RADHIKA, B.COM.,LL.B (HONS)., LLM (CRIMINAL LAW), THE TAMILNADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EXECLLENCE IN LAW

BEST CITATION – G R RADHIKA, CASTE-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (10) OF 2026, PG. 01-12, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive socio-legal analysis of caste-based discrimination in India, tracing its origins in ancient religious texts through its contemporary manifestations in education, employment, criminal justice, and digital spaces. It examines the constitutional and statutory architecture constructed to combat caste oppression — including Articles 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the Constitution, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and its 2015 Amendment, the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act 2013, and the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. Drawing on documented empirical research, NCRB data, judicial pronouncements, and socio-historical scholarship, the article identifies seven overlapping forms of caste-based deviance — untouchability, educational discrimination, occupational bondage, economic exclusion, physical and sexual violence, honour killings, and digital harassment — and analyses the structural causes that sustain them despite formal prohibition. Key judicial decisions from Indra Sawhney (1992) to Sukanya Shantha (2024) are examined for their contribution to, and occasional retreat from, the constitutional promise of substantive equality. The article concludes that the persistence of caste discrimination is not a failure of law alone but of institutional composition, enforcement culture, and political will, and that genuine transformation requires reform of the very agencies charged with implementing the law.

Keywords: caste-based discrimination, Dalits, untouchability, SC/ST Atrocities Act, reservation policy, caste violence, manual scavenging, social exclusion, constitutional equality, India