Researched by: Sara Varghese & Ankita Ghosh 

First, a quick timeline of the case

• In June, 2018, a senior nun files an FIR in Kerala alleging that Franco Mulakkal—then the bishop of the Jalandhar diocese—has raped her at least 13 times between 2014 and 2016. The allegations included being forced to perform “unnatural sex”—which is legal code for anal or oral intercourse.
• Point to note: she’s already spent over a month filing complaints with Church leaders—including Cardinal Mar George Alancherry, the senior most Catholic priest of the country, and the Vatican envoy to India—but to no avail.
• Mulakkal alleges that the rape allegation was fabricated—and part of a conspiracy to bring him down. 
• He also claims that the accuser was motivated by revenge. In 2016, her cousin filed a complaint with the Church alleging that she was having an illicit affair with the cousin’s husband. Mulakkal stripped her of all senior responsibilities in response.
• The accuser draws the support of a group of nuns who launch a hunger strike demanding the arrest of the bishop. Their order—Missionaries of Jesus—instead orders a probe into the six nuns—including the accuser.
• Point to note: This is the first time that Catholic nuns in India have flouted their holy vows to defy the Church.
• Mulakkal is stripped of his pastoral duties in September, 2018—and arrested soon after. But he also receives bail within a month.
• Adding to the twists and turns: One of the key prosecution witnesses, Father Kuriakose is found dead in Mulakkal’s diocese in Jalandhar in October—raising questions of foul play. According to Kuriakose, many nuns had complained about Mulakkal.
• The trial finally begins in September, 2020—after months of Mulakkal doing his best to get the charges dismissed, including moving the Supreme Court.
• It concludes on January 10, 2022, and the ruling was pronounced on Friday, January 14.

Quote to note: The case revealed the ugly misogyny of leading members of the Catholic community in Kerala, including MLA PC George who declared in 2018: 

“Is there any doubt that the nun is a prostitute? Twelve times it was pleasure, 13th time it became a rape? Where was she when it happened 12 times? Whom is she telling this to? Why did she not complain on the first time it happened?… Let the three sisters be examined. Let us see if they are holy.”

Next, the ruling

In his 289-page order, Additional Sessions Judge G Gopakumar ignored a number of key judicial standards in sexual assault cases. And in doing so, he dismissed the accuser’s account as “inconsistent.” Why this matters: under Indian law, an alleged victim’s account must be accepted unless it contains “material inconsistencies.”

The definition of rape: The judge narrowly focused on proof of “penile penetration”—noting that she did not mention it in her initial statement to the police or the doctors. The medical examination, in fact, includes descriptions of being forced to touch Mulakkal’s genitalia, and that he did the same to her. And yet, the judge claimed: “it is revealed to the doctor that there were 13 episodes of sexual assault, there is no mention of penile penetration.”

Law to note: Since 2013, Indian rape laws classifies all such sexual contact as “rape”—but the judge relied on an outdated definition that is restricted to “non-consensual peno-vaginal penetration.”  

Victim shaming: Ignoring the vastly unequal power relationship between a bishop and a nun, the judge offers a shockingly outdated reason to knock down her allegations: Why didn’t she speak up before?

“[S]he chose to return to the convent along with the accused, that too after being subjected to rape previous night. According to her the vow of chastity had haunted her after every abuse. After every rape, she pleaded for mercy. In the said circumstances these journeys and close interaction with the accused definitely undermines the prosecution case.”

Even worse: “In several instances, the verdict refers to allegations of sexual assault as the accused attempting to ‘share bed’ with—which has a connotation of consent.” This is a reference to the accuser’s testimony—which includes her telling other nuns that she dreaded Mulakkal’s arrival at her convent because: "If the Bishop comes, I will have to share the bed with him. I did not tell them that I have slept with him."

Sexual history and conduct: The judge also focused on the complaint filed by the accuser’s cousin—alleging a secret affair. The cousin has since taken back the complaint, admitting it was false and based on a misunderstanding. The judge oddly chose to ignore this entirely. His argument: 

“[It] is doubtful whether a lady of the stature (the cousin) who is a teacher by profession would malign the reputation of her own husband, who is a lawyer practicing at the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, for a silly verbal brawl with PW1 (the accuser) and her family members.”

So he simply dismissed the testimony of the cousin about her own complaint without any evidence for doing so.

More importantly this: The Indian courts have long held that an accuser’s sexual history and past behaviour cannot be used to dismiss a rape allegation. As The News Minute notes, the defence continually smeared the accuser to make the case for Mulakkal—and the ruling essentially affirmed their argument. According to LiveLaw, “The Court's discussions on the character of the victim violate Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act, which state that in rape cases, the character and past sexual experiences of the woman are irrelevant.”

Victim testimony: As per the Indian law, an alleged rape victim’s testimony must be accepted unless it contains “material inconsistencies.” But what is “material”? LiveLaw notes that the judge applied the principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) to reject her testimony. But this flouts established Supreme Court precedent, including a 1973 ruling that states:

"Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient, or to be not wholly credible. Falsity of material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end.”

A close reading of the ruling reveals instead a judge in determined search of inconsistencies to dismiss the case.

What’s next: The Kerala police plan to appeal the verdict in the High Court.

Why this case matters

For starters, if Mulakkal had been found guilty, he would be the first Catholic bishop convicted of rape. And the very fact that the accuser—a nun who joined the Church at the tender age of 15—found the courage to speak up is huge. For example, the Church threatened one nun with expulsion just for driving a car and publishing poems. As The News Minute notes:

“Unlike many women with the means to connect to a wide network for support, nuns either have no such support system or a smaller system that is restricted to the convent, especially when they stand up against an authoritative figure. They are forced to continue to live in the same hostile environment of abuse and ostracisation, like the survivor-nun.”

BIg point to note: This is not an isolated case. A 2019 Associated Press investigation exposed multiple cases of nuns being sexually abused—and for decades. All of them were hushed up or quietly dealt with by moving the nun to a safer space. One of the biggest reasons for this silence is the Church’s emphasis on chastity:

“Celibacy is a cornerstone of Catholic religious life, as is sexual purity among nuns. Many nuns say a sister who admits to a sexual experience—even if it’s forced—faces the risk of isolation within her order, and possibly even expulsion. ‘You’re not sure if you’ll be kept in your congregation, because so much is about your vow of chastity,’ said Sister Shalini Mulackal, a New Delhi-based theologian. ‘That fear is there for the young ones to disclose what has happened to them.’”

The bottomline: Back in 2018, the accuser wrote to an Ambassador of the Pope: “From childhood we have been taught to believe that the Church is our mother. But in the light of my experience I am beginning to think that the Church is a stepmother to women and laity.”

Reading list

If you read just one thing, make it this Associated Press investigation into sexual abuse of nuns in the Catholic church. The News Minute has a detailed timeline of the case—and explains the campaign to smear the accuser. Indian Express and LiveLaw offer the best analysis of the judgement—the latter is more detailed. Quint has details of the case of Father Kuriakose, the key witness who died under suspicious circumstances. We did an explainer on Sister Abhaya—who was killed by a priest and a nun in a Kerala convent.