Sexual violence disproportionately affects women. That is not debatable. Structural inequality, patriarchy, and power imbalance make women more vulnerable in measurable ways. Any legal reform must start by acknowledging that reality. But here is the question that has been quietly growing in policy discussions:
Should sexual offence laws be fully gender-neutral?
Under current Indian law, now reflected in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the offence of rape is framed with a woman as the victim. Male and transgender victims may seek remedy under other provisions, but not under the same definition.
Some argue that this structure is necessary because women face systemic vulnerability. Others argue that equality before law demands neutral drafting. Both positions are grounded in legitimate concerns.
Those who resist gender neutrality worry that expanding definitions may symbolically dilute the focus on women’s safety. In a society where reporting is already difficult for women, any perceived dilution feels risky.
Those who support neutrality argue that male and LGBTQ+ victims remain invisible in the current framework. Without formal recognition, underreporting persists. Without data, policy remains incomplete.
The question, then, is not whether women need protection. They do. The question is whether protection for women requires exclusion of others.
Can we imagine a model where the core definition of sexual assault is gender-neutral, while aggravated categories recognise structural vulnerability? Many other jurisdictions have attempted such drafting, neutral at the base level, sensitive at the aggravated level.
There is also a cultural dimension. Male survivors face intense stigma. Social narratives often deny the possibility of male victimhood altogether. Without legal acknowledgment, these narratives harden.
But reform in this area must be careful. Abrupt change without institutional readiness can create confusion or backlash. The aim cannot be symbolic equality alone. It must be functional equality.
If gender neutrality is introduced, it must come with:
- Clear drafting to prevent misuse
- Retention of enhanced safeguards for structurally vulnerable groups
- Data-driven review mechanisms
This is not a battle between feminism and neutrality. In fact, mature feminism has always argued for equality under law.
The deeper issue is whether our legal system is confident enough to expand recognition without weakening protection.
Justice should not be a zero-sum space.
Expanding legal recognition to one group does not have to mean shrinking it for another.
If the ultimate goal is dignity and bodily autonomy for all persons, then the law must continuously ask itself whether its categories reflect lived reality.
Reform does not mean abandoning the past.
It means refining it.
iVolunteer Blog - everything about volunteering 