Keywords
Victimization, Misuse of Dowry Laws, IPC Section 498A, Male Victims of Domestic Violence, Gender-Neutral Laws and Reform, Gender-Biased Laws, Legal Reform in Criminal Law, Male Victims of Abuse, Gender-Neutral Legal Reform, Section 498A IPC.
Abstract
The term “virile victimization” refers to the systemic disregard and invisibility of male victims in Indian law. Although lawmakers rightfully designed Indian criminal laws to shield women from gender-based exploitation and abuse, they often achieve this by systematically excluding men as possible victims. Laws like Section 63 (rape), Section 74 (outraging a woman’s modesty), and Section 85 (cruelty by husband or family) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly IPC) recognize only women as victims and men as criminals because lawmakers wrote them with a gender-specific perspective. This legal imbalance violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all people, thus undermining the principle of intelligible differentia.
Furthermore, the absence of gender-neutral regulations results in legal abuse, unfounded allegations, and financial, social, and psychological persecution of defenceless males. Even though documented instances of men being falsely accused or experiencing domestic abuse are increasing, the legislative response is still found to be insufficient. This essay promotes a gender-balanced criminal law reform that guarantees justice for all people, regardless of gender. Acknowledging male suffering is a step toward a more inclusive and equitable judicial system, not a rejection of women’s rights.
Introduction: Unveiling An Ignored Reality –
Impartiality is thought to be a fundamental component of the legal system in civilizations where justice is symbolized by the blindfolded figure of a woman holding balanced scales. However, the criminal justice system in India and other countries is subtly and continuously shaped by gender-based prejudices. As a result of these prejudices—often rooted in historical patriarchy and cultural expectations—people, especially men, are disproportionately treated as either victims or perpetrators.
In addition to being out of date, the conventional wisdom that holds that males are always the aggressors and women are always the victims is harmful. Unquestionably, women have endured decades of systematic oppression, but males too experience particular, perhaps imperceptible types of unfairness in the judicial system today.
For example, Section 63 of the BNShttps://ledroitindia.in/indian-penal-code-vs-bhartiya-nyaya-sanhitabns/ defines rape as a crime committed by a man against a woman. Male survivors of sexual abuse are rendered legally invisible by this gender-specific phrase, which by definition excludes both male victims and female perpetrators. The legislation ignores the fact that power, consent, and coercion—rather than gender—are what define sexual violence.
For fear of mockery, emasculation, or incredulity, boys and men who experience sexual assault frequently choose not to disclose the incident. In highly patriarchal societies, where male emotional expression is stigmatized and victimization is associated with weakness, such responses are not unusual.
Sexual offenses are not the only ones that fall under this institutional blind spot. Topics such as custodial rights, workplace harassment, and domestic violence are frequently presented through a single-gender perspective. When false charges are made against men, they are given little to no legal remedy, and irreparable harm is caused to their reputation and mental health.
Recognizing that both victims and offenders might be of any gender, nations such as the United States and Canada have taken steps to enact gender-neutral legislation. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice ensures inclusion and justice in the legal system by including the term “person” in its legal definitions. India, meanwhile, falls behind, holding onto rules that, although once essential for safeguarding women, today frequently perpetuate gender stereotypes.
Furthermore, although being a useful tool, judicial discretion can also lead to inconsistency when it is tainted by gendered presumptions. For instance, despite the enormity of the woman’s crime, the Supreme Court lowered her sentence in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi, emphasizing her position as a mother. Compassion is admirable, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of justice.
Legal change is only the first step toward true equality in the criminal justice system; a cultural transformation that acknowledges suffering, unfairness, and vulnerability for people of both genders is also necessary. Only then can justice be claimed to have been served in its purest form.
Breaking The Myth Of Male Invulnerability
This prejudice, which has its roots in patriarchal conventions, ignores the fact that males can also experience discrimination, abuse, and violence. Consequently, instead of getting assistance and justice, male victims frequently endure humiliation and mockery while suffering in silence. Due to gender-specific rules that assume males are the culprits and women are the victims, India’s criminal justice system perpetuates this fallacy. The wording of laws like Section 63 (rape), Section 74 (outraging modesty), and Section 85 (cruelty by spouse or family) precludes males from being victims. Meaningful reforms are still lacking in spite of several reports and committee recommendations, such as those made by the Justice Verma Committee, which urged for gender-neutral legislation. In addition to ignoring male victims, this promotes abuse by those who take advantage of these legal prejudices. According to surveys, a sizable portion of men experience violence at the hands of their spouses, and false allegations made under Section 498A ( S-85 BNS ) have destroyed lives and professions. According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), married males commit suicide at high rates, which suggests that untreated male suffering in the home is a greater problem. However, males frequently hesitate to come forward because of social constraints and the lack of appropriate legal frameworks, which perpetuates the illusion that they are emotionally and physically immune. Acknowledging that victimization is not gender-specific is essential to upholding the equality principle stated in Article 14 of the Constitution. Only then will we be able to make real progress toward a just and compassionate judicial system.
Great. I’ll gather data and examples comparing India’s gender-specific laws with gender-neutral laws in other countries, al
Gender-Specific Vs. Gender-Neutral Laws: India In Global Perspective .
The main laws in India pertaining to rape, sexual harassment, and domestic abuse are specifically gendered. For instance, the 2005 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act lacks protection for male victims and defines the “aggrieved person” as a woman or kid. Similarly, the workplace POSH Act even refers to a “aggrieved woman,” while Section 63 BNS (rape) only applies when “a man penetrates” a woman. According to one remark, “patriarchy has impeded the recognition of males as victims, while offenses against women have been recognized.” This effectively implies that many males (as well as LGBTQ people) have no legal options: As of right now, Indian laws “recognize only cis women as victims and only cis men as perpetrators,” thereby leaving out survivors of abuse who are homosexual or transgender, women who have been raped by women, and male rape victims.
On the other hand, a lot of Western nations have implemented gender-neutral laws. For example, under Canada’s Criminal Code, sexual assault is broadly defined, and the same legal protection is accorded to men and women alike, meaning equal protection is given to all victims. In Sweden, which is frequently ranked among the best countries for gender equality, sexual and domestic violence are treated as gender-neutral crimes. For many years, the country has offered help and even specialized clinics for victims of male rape. With the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the UK changed its rules in a similar manner. It eliminated the need for a victim of rape to be female and defined rape based on penetration, not gender. In fact, recent data reflects this impartial stance by showing that about one-third of domestic abuse victims in Britain are men. Finland, Norway, and other nations show similar trends. These countries focus on addressing any non-consensual abuse, regardless of the victim’s gender, and many of them provide gender-neutral legal protection.
There are actual repercussions for these disparities in India. Many male victims go undetected, according to studies and reports. In 2019, for instance, a poll of 1,000 married Indian males revealed that 52.4% had at least one incident of emotional abuse by their spouses, yet Indian law provided them with no protection. 47% of males in Karnataka reported experiencing domestic abuse from their relationships, according to another study. Men who report abuse “say our laws do not recognise that…; even if a man is sharing his suffering, we tend to belittle his experience,” according to a journalist, who also said that male survivors frequently encounter incredulity. Reports of police prejudice are common. One husband recounted how, after calling the police with his wife after a quarrel, “the police took her statement but not mine…They laughed in my face and said that I couldn’t take care of my wife. Under these gendered rules, authorities have wrongfully charged fathers even in extreme situations. Stories like this highlight the human cost of one-sided rules as well as their potential for abuse. Legal safeguards should uphold “the right to life and personal liberty of the man” in addition to women’s rights, the Indian Supreme Court has warned.
The law does not include LGBTQ+ victims either. Since current Indian legislation recognizes “only cis women” as rape victims, it excludes a homosexual man raped by another man or a trans person raped by anyone else, according to a 2025 study. Until 2024, gay and bisexual men had to rely on the decriminalized Section 377 of the IPC to seek justice, but lawmakers eliminated this provision in India’s new penal code (BNS). As a result, a recent poll in six Indian cities revealed that 37.3% of young gay/bisexual males (18–24) had experienced sexual assault, including rape. However, the maximum penalty for crimes against trans people is only two years. This disparity, according to critics, “deprives men—queer or otherwise—of protection against rape” and diminishes the worth of transgender lives.
Reform is becoming more and more popular in light of this. Gender-neutral legislation will safeguard all victims and prevent the misuse of legal measures, according to Indian campaigners and academics. Legal authorities openly denounced the “gross misuse” of women-only dowry and domestic violence laws in late 2024 and called for new gender-neutral regulations with protections (such pre-screening complaints).
In May 2024, BJP officials reaffirmed this stance by calling for changes to domestic abuse and harassment laws to make them gender-neutral so that everyone receives justice. They highlighted that men accounted for 72% of suicide victims in India in 2022. One official cited well-known cases—such as that of programmer Atul Subhash, who left a video suicide note claiming he had suffered years of false harassment charges—to argue that men also need emotional and legal support.
Supreme Court justices and rights advocates have emphasized that lawmakers must balance women’s safety with men’s rights under legislative safeguards.
According to data from international studies (such as the US CDC and the UK ONS), a significant proportion of victims of sexual assault and domestic violence are males. As a result, many people believe India should adopt similar policies.
Sources: Analysis is based on legal reviews and news reports (e.g. ) and comparative law sources (e.g. Canada’s Criminal Code and Swedish/UK practice).
Illustrations/Examples-
Recent Incidents In India When Claims Of Cruelty, Harassment, Or Murder Against Spouses Were Connected To The Abuse Of Laws Pertaining To Women.
The abuse of laws intended to safeguard spouses has come to light in a number of recent situations. Software developer Atul claimed that his estranged wife and in-laws had harassed and blackmailed him through bogus accusations under Section 498A IPC, which led to his suicide in December 2024. According to him, they asked him ₹3 crore in order to drop the accusations. By taking suo moto cognizance, the Supreme Court issued a warning on the abuse of cruelty provisions as extortion instruments.
In February 2025, authorities reported that 25-year-old Manav Sharma, a TCS employee from Agra, took his own life after false accusations of domestic abuse. His coworkers showed support, and his messages revealed that the legal threats had caused him severe emotional distress. The case increased calls for domestic abuse legislation that are gender-neutral.
In May 2025, assailants killed Raja Raghuvanshi while he was on his honeymoon in Meghalaya. Authorities took his wife, Sonam, into custody for allegedly plotting with hired killers to inherit his fortune. The incident sparked outrage and renewed public demands for gender-balanced spousal protection measures.
JUDGEMENTS
In Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721
The Supreme Court held that, unless it is specifically related to the marriage, a general demand for money (such as for home expenditures) does not constitute a dowry under Section 304-B IPC. The accused was found not guilty as there was no proof of such a connection. The Court underlined that the demand must expressly relate to dowry as defined by law in order to utilize 304-B.
In Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 821
The Supreme Court provided instructions to avoid arbitrary arrests after observing abuse of Section 498A IPC. One of the suggestions was the creation of Family Welfare Committees to review complaints before taking any action. It sought to strike a balance between protections for women and measures to prevent false accusations.
2018 saw a partial overturning of the Family Welfare Committee’s recommendation.
Conclusion: Justice Beyond Gender
Laws must treat all people equally, regardless of gender, in order to be really just. Although Section 498A IPC was essential in protecting women from abuse, its abuse has resulted in the harm of defenceless males, underscoring the need for legal reform and gender-neutral legislation. Due to gender-biased legislation, male victims of domestic abuse and violence sometimes go ignored. As demonstrated in nations like the UK, Canada, and Sweden, implementing gender-neutral legislative reforms may guarantee equity, stop abuse, and safeguard everyone, not just women. India has to adopt comprehensive, well-rounded criminal law changes and get past binary presumptions.
References-
Citation: SCC Online SC 821https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx
2. Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra,
Citation: (2007) 9 SCC 721 https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.x
