Sexual violence is not a singular offence. It is a complex psychological experience shaped by power dynamics, gender norms, and institutional responses. The Kerala actor sexual violence case, which began in 2017, evolved into a prolonged public prosecution that tested the survivor’s resilience as she navigated a challenging judicial and societal landscape. From a psychological standpoint, the case illustrates how legal systems may unintentionally perpetuate suffering. From a feminist perspective, it exposes how patriarchal power structures continue to influence court proceedings, media narratives, and public judgement—particularly when the accused possesses social, economic, or cultural capital.

The actor was abducted and sexually assaulted while travelling in a car, a crime involving physical restraint, coercion, and intense emotional fear. The nature of the assault suggests severe traumatic impact, including fear conditioning, loss of bodily autonomy, and perceived threat to life. The prolonged legal process, culminating in the acquittal of actor Dileep, reignited debates on judicial fairness and belief in survivors. The survivor’s subsequent Instagram post, outlining six reasons for her loss of faith in the judicial process, offers critical insight into the psychological consequences of prolonged legal intervention.

Secondary Victimisation

In legal and psychological terms, secondary victimisation refers to the additional harm experienced by survivors due to insensitive, ineffective, or re-traumatising responses from institutions such as the police, courts, workplaces, families, and society at large. These responses often involve victim-blaming, minimisation of experiences, invasive questioning, or prolonged procedures. This dual victimisation obstructs healing and can cause survivors to feel harmed by the very institutions meant to protect them. Trauma psychology research shows that such experiences can intensify post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. In the actor’s sexual assault case, the legal process itself became a prolonged stressor, extending trauma rather than aiding recovery.

Statements and Their Societal Significance

The survivor’s Instagram statements go beyond social media engagement. They call for a deeper understanding of the country’s democratic and judicial realities. This issue arises in a nation that claims adherence to democratic principles and legal transparency while aspiring towards technological advancement and development. According to Transparency International, India scored 41 out of 100 on the Corruption Perceptions Index in 2019, which dropped to 38 by 2024. The index measures perceived public-sector corruption on a scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). Despite democratic claims, systemic injustice, power imbalance, and inequality persist.

The survivor’s statements carry profound psychological meaning. The following six statements are analysed from a psychological perspective.

Statement 1

“My fundamental rights were not protected, the most important evidence in this case - the memory card was found to have been illegally accessed three times while it was in court custody.”

From a psychological perspective, the integrity of evidence is crucial to a survivor’s sense of justice. When critical evidence is compromised while under court custody, it leads to institutional betrayal—the distress that occurs when institutions fail those who rely on them. Survivors experiencing such betrayal often suffer heightened anxiety, emotional dysregulation, long-term mistrust of legal systems, and re-experiencing feelings of helplessness similar to the original trauma.

Statement 2 

“Two public prosecutors resigned from this case, stating clearly that the court environment had become hostile towards the prosecution. Both of them personally told me not to expect justice from this court, as they felt it was biased.”

Public prosecutors often symbolise institutional support for survivors. Their resignation intensifies the survivor’s perception that power protects the powerful rather than the vulnerable. Psychologically, this can lead to emotional exhaustion, hopelessness, and learned helplessness, where individuals begin to believe that their actions cannot influence outcomes.

Statement 3

“I repeatedly requested a proper investigation into the tampering of the memory card. However, the investigation report was never given to me, until I kept asking again and again.”

Transparency is a cornerstone of procedural justice. Trauma survivors experience heightened stress, anger, and rumination when denied access to information. Repeatedly having to request basic information reflects power imbalance and procedural unfairness, reinforcing mistrust and psychological distress—clearly evident in the survivor’s account.

Statement 4

“While I was fighting for a fair trial, the accused filed a petition requesting that this same judge continue to hear the case. This raised even more serious doubts in my mind.”

From a psychological perspective, perceived bias can be as damaging as actual bias. Survivors need visibly neutral environments to feel safe. When impartiality is questioned, it leads to increased anxiety, distorted thinking, anticipatory stress before hearings, and complete erosion of trust in judicial systems.

Statement 5

“l even wrote letters to the Honourable President of India and the Honourable Prime Minister of India, expressing my concerns and seeking intervention”.

Appealing to the highest constitutional authorities signals systemic failure across multiple levels. Psychologically, this reflects exhaustion and moral injury—the distress caused when authority figures violate ethical expectations. Such actions indicate desperation, not dramatization.

Statement 6

“I requested the court to conduct the proceedings in an open court, so that the public and media could be present and see for themselves what was happening. This request was denied.”

Open trials offer psychological protection by reducing isolation and increasing accountability. Denying this reinforces secrecy, which historically serves to protect male reputations rather than uphold women’s dignity.

The survivor began her post by stating, “Not every citizen in this country is treated equally before the law.” This reflects concerns regarding power, privilege, and inequality in access to justice. Her statement transcends personal anguish, serving as a broader critique of systemic imbalance that resonates with countless survivors facing similar barriers.

Similar Patterns in Sexual Violence Judgements in India

The Kerala actor’s case aligns with national trends seen in cases such as Nirbhaya, Kathua, Hathras, and Bilkis Bano.

Prolonged trials:

Sexual violence cases in India often involve years or decades of delay, forcing survivors to repeatedly relive trauma. Justice delayed becomes justice denied.

Character assassination:

Survivors are morally scrutinised rather than crimes being objectively examined. Women’s credibility is questioned based on behaviour, relationships, and social roles—reinforcing patriarchal control.

Protection of powerful accused:

Social, political, and economic influence often results in institutional leniency. The presence of a prominent film industry figure in the Kerala case significantly altered prosecutorial dynamics.

Focus on survivor credibility over perpetrator guilt:

Instead of asking “Why did the crime occur?”, the system repeatedly asks “Is the woman believable?” This results in collective psychological abuse and discourages reporting.

Restructuring Recommendations: A Psychological Approach

Addressing sexual violence requires more than legal reform—it demands psychologically informed structural change.

Judicial systems:

  • Establish trauma-informed courts
  • Mandatory gender sensitivity and bias training
  • Independent oversight of evidence handling
  • Media responsibility:
  • Avoid sensationalism and victim-centred scrutiny
  • Focus on systemic failures, not personal morality
  • Use survivor-respecting language

Public understanding of sexual violence must improve through education, survivor-centred campaigns, and dismantling rape myths. As Dr B.R. Ambedkar said, “Educate, organise, agitate.” Collective action is essential to achieve genuine social justice, equality, and a violence-free society.

(The author is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at SRM University AP)