This Article Is Written By Ayush Kumar, 4th Yr B.ALL.B University Of Lucknow, Lucknow, During Internship At Ledroit India.
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 systemic disregard and invisibility of male victims in Indian law is referred to as “virile victimization.” Although Indian criminal laws are rightfully intended to shield women from exploitation and abuse based on their gender, they frequently do this by systematically eliminating males as possible victims. Only women are recognized as victims and males as criminals in 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 ( IPC provision ), which are written with a gender-specific perspective. Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees all people equal protection under the law, is violated by this legal imbalance( in the manner 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 if there are more and more documented instances of males being falsely accused or experiencing domestic abuse, the legislative reaction is still 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 –
One thinks impartiality is a fundamental component of the legal system in civilizations where the blindfolded figure of a woman holding balanced scales serves as a symbol of justice. However, the criminal justice system in India and other countries is subtly and continuously shaped by gender-based prejudices. People, especially males, are disproportionately treated as either victims or perpetrators as a result of these prejudices, which are frequently based in historical patriarchy and cultural expectations.
In addition to being out of date, the conventional wisdom that holds that males are always the aggressors and women are always the victims is harmful.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 BNS 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.
This silence is made worse by the social taboo against recognizing masculine fragility. 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. It covers topics where laws are frequently presented via a single gender perspective, such as custodial rights, workplace harassment, and domestic violence. Men have little to no legal remedy when false charges are made against them, and the harm to their reputation and mental health is irreparable.
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
Men have long been portrayed by society as strong, emotionally unbreakable, and stoic. This prejudice, which has its roots in patriarchal conventions, ignores the fact that males can also experience discrimination, abuse, and violence. Men are rarely allowed to show their weakness or ask for assistance in the mainstream narrative of masculinity, particularly when they are victims of crimes like sexual assault or domestic abuse. 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. This mismatch is further revealed by statistics. 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. Men must be able to talk about their experiences without feeling ashamed or afraid, and damaging preconceptions must be destroyed in order for society to be just. Laws must be changed to be inclusive and mindful of all victims, regardless of gender, in order to guarantee that justice is not limited by archaic notions of masculinity. 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. These rules, according to analysts, assume that males cannot be victims and are primarily focused on safeguarding women (the Prescribed Gender-Specific approach). 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, sexual assault is defined broadly under Canada’s Criminal Code, “according men and women alike the same legal protection,” meaning that all victims are equally protected. Sexual and domestic violence are treated as gender-neutral crimes in Sweden, which is frequently ranked as one of the best countries for gender equality. 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, this impartial stance is reflected in recent data that indicates around one-third of victims of domestic abuse in Britain are males. Similar trends are seen in Finland, Norway, and other nations. The focus is on any non-consensual abuse, regardless of the victim’s gender, and in many countries, legal protection is gendered.
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 to my face and said that I can’t take care of my wife.” Under these gendered rules, dads have in extreme situations, been wrongfully charged. A man who had been imprisoned for five years after his teenage daughter acknowledged lying about being raped by her father (at the behest of her boyfriend) was released by a Dehradun court in 2024. 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.
LGBTQ+ victims are not included either. Since “only cis women” are considered rape victims under present Indian legislation, a homosexual guy who is raped by another man or a trans person who is raped by anybody else is not eligible under the rape statute, according to a 2025 study. Gay and bisexual males had to use the decriminalized Section 377 IPC to seek justice until 2024, when it was eliminated 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. Even worse, according to a 2015 national research, around 30% of hijra/trans women asked stated that their first sexual relationship was not voluntary. 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 reiterated this by calling for domestic abuse and harassment laws to be changed “gender-neutral so that everyone gets justice.” They pointed out that 72% of suicide victims in India in 2022 were males. He made the argument that males too require emotional and legal help by citing well-known incidents, such as programmer Atul Subhash, who left a video suicide note claiming that he had been the victim of years of bogus harassment charges.
The safety of women and men’s rights must be balanced under legislative safeguards, according to Supreme Court justices and rights advocates. 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.
Another TCS employee from Agra, 25-year-old Manav Sharma, committed himself in February 2025 after being falsely accused of domestic abuse. His coworkers’ support and his communications suggested that the legal threats were causing him great emotional suffering. The case increased calls for domestic abuse legislation that are gender-neutral.
Raja Raghuvanshi was killed while on his honeymoon in Meghalaya in May 2025. For allegedly plotting with hired murderers to inherit his fortune, his wife Sonam was taken into custody. Outrage over the event rekindled demands for spousal protection measures that are gender-balanced.
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
