The Tehelka sexual assault case is a test case for the new legal regime put in place after the December 16 fatal gangrape in Delhi. The alacrity shown by the Goa Police in lodging a preliminary inquiry and consequently registering an FIR is also perfectly in sync with a Constitution Bench judgment in the Lalita Kumari case.

The Bench had ruled that police were duty bound to register an FIR whenever “information” relating to cognisable offences is disclosed. The word “information” clarifies that an FIR can be lodged merely on receipt of information and the complainant does not need to come forward.

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which brought in changes in the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, also made a police officer’s refusal to register an FIR in a sexual assault case an offence punishable with jail up to two years. Further, the new law expanded the ambit of sexual harassment to include sexual overtures, demand of sexual favours and forcible disrobing as penal offences that can fetch a maximum seven-year jail term. The definition of rape was broadened to include insertion of any object into a woman’s private parts (digital rape).

It makes it clear that consent given under intoxication will not mean an informed consent, and hence rape charges will stick. The law also clarifies that punishment shall be graver for a man who commits rape on a woman by virtue of being in a position of trust or authority, or control and dominance. Minimum punishment in such cases is now 10 years’ jail, as opposed to seven years in other cases, and maximum is life term.

Similarly, the Act also mandates a person to whom the sexual assault complaint has been disclosed to “immediately” inform police. An aberration can fetch one-year jail term.

The Tehelka case, involving Tarun Tejpal as the accused and Shoma Chaudhury for not informing police after the victim complained, covers all these grounds. There is a lot vested in how the case unfolds, how the new legal provisions are argued in court, and whether the provision calling for conclusion of the trial within two months of the chargesheet — which itself is to be filed within 60 days of the FIR — is met.

The Supreme Court only recently observed that lower courts need to urgently understand the objective and scope of the new law so as to deliver justice as per the legislative intent.