Offense toward men in India is a silent issue. Everybody knows it but nobody wants to address it, despite the sufferers themselves decline to admit it. Article 14 is our Fundamental Right, which guarantees ‘Right to Equality’ to every person of India. Equity implies ‘the status of being equal, particularly in standing, preferences, or events. But it is assumed that when we discuss gender inequality it indicates a crime toward women. Gender inequality does not involve a crime toward women but men also. Today, our community is strong enough to communicate the subject like LGBT then it should also realize the importance of the notion of ‘Crime against Men’.
According to a study conveyed in 2010, it was observed that approximately in each state of India 19 % of males were certainly subjected to sexual harassment at the workplace. Yet it is observed as sacred and the stillness furnishes addition to ignorance — defeating the comprehensive issue and decreasing a hard stance toward it. This Article assists in estimating this procurement and its effectiveness in the field of the modern-day.
Some Real Stories
Some real-life events encountered by men were written in an Article of the Column “THREAD” of E-Paper of The Hindu on 2nd May 2017. According to it, a male violation reporter was stalked and was getting improper communications on Facebook from a woman. Who also did a phone call to him which was extremely discomforting for the Reporter? Ultimately, he asked the help of the Superintendent of Police of his associate who did not apprehend his accusation severely and instructed him to let her be. On owning suggested that why had he not registered a sexual offense lawsuit toward that woman, he replied “Imagine for a second that I did register charges. The girl would be called for examination, and if she reposed and stated that it was me who was teasing her rather, her version would take preference over mine and I’d be screwed.”
There is another tale of a young guy who went to drop a female colleague following a night pub-hopping who drove herself on him. Due to this immoral act, he was thrilled. When he said to his friends that he had been dishonoured, they giggled and stated that a thousand men would prefer to be in his stead. Such males assume that they don’t have any resort for their embarrassment.
Decoding the Legal Provision
Law is a diversion of understanding. Despite this provision has reopened opportunities for a lot of discussions. The necessity for discussion commences with ‘outraging the delicacy of a woman’. This distinct term that forms the crux is not simply vague and problematic, but to some degree is also quite biased. Modesty for one woman may not anticipate the same for a different woman. In that knowledge, the term is subjective.
Furthermore, from a plain passage of the provision, it comes across that assaulting or using unlawful restraint only to abuse the modesty of a woman shall be condemned. So, does it suggest that assault or criminal force without the aforementioned purpose will not be guilty? If that is the problem, then the law will be considerably restricted in its range and may require some alteration or adjustment to create anxiety in the thoughts of the perpetrators. A glimpse at some of the decisions presented by the Supreme Court will support us with some certainty.
The Supreme Court has developed ‘modesty’ on numerous instants:
Modesty is a virtue which is essential to a woman owing to her sex; A woman, intelligent or fool, modern or traditional, maintains dignity, awake or sleeping which is competent of being outraged; Modesty of a woman is abused when the act of the offender is such that it is offensive and can be regarded as an insult to female virtue and character, etc.; Insignificant information that the modesty of a woman is expected to be outraged is adequate to establish the offense without any conscious intention of offending her modesty. Section 354 will apply to all sexual acts contemplated or acted toward a woman that stops short of invasion.
The Supreme Court has in numerous decisions attempted to explain which acts can or cannot be construed to indicate ‘abusing the modesty of a woman’.
Let us now consider some of those decisions:
More than a decade back, it was in the matter of Rupan Deol Bajaj v K.P.S. Gill ((1995) 6 SCC 194) that the Hon’ble Supreme Court endeavoured to bring out the difficult duty of understanding the phrase ‘modesty’. Considering the IPC was quiet on the application to be attributed to it, the Court took support to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edition) to determine the accurate meaning to be attributed to this term. As per the vocabulary definition of the term ‘modesty’, especially regarding a woman, expressed a woman ‘womanly dignity of behaviour; ethical chastity of perception, speech, and conduct’ while the dictionary definition of the term `modest’ proposed ‘decorous in practice and conduct; not forward or corrupt’. This initiated the whole method of performing more complex.
As objected to this was the sentence articulated by the Apex Court in Aman Kumar v State of Haryana, (AIR 2004 SC 1497) almost a decade later the Supreme Court categorically declared that the very act of dragging a woman, removing her dress together with asking sexual intercourse was adequate to confirm that the modesty of the woman was expected to be outraged. In such a site, the intention to establish the equivalent was not expected and could be concluded. Thus, preferably laying down one free version of the term, the court decided to determine the same on the matter to matter basis.
Law, as they state, is often mistreated by numerous. The threat of Section354 of IPC has also been constrained to a lot of abuse by women attempting retaliation toward their male matches by falsely claiming them on the grounds of abusing their modesty. This was specifically what occurred in the matter of M.A. Farooqui v State of Andhra Pradesh (1998 (1) ALD Cri 146.) in which a fake suit was addressed by a woman. This carried into light one critical feature that there are characters who may indeed mistreat the assurance awarded to them.
The Paralyzed Law
In India, men are just handled like an ATM or contributor. They are overwhelmed with duties and no claims have been assigned to them. Men do not possess any modesty or honour. According to Indian culture, their modesty cannot be abused as according to them the urge of sex is solely in men. Around 13 percent of men among the peer group of 18-24 have been victims of online sexual harassment. The statistics are not accurate because of the lack of autonomous analysis. The suits of sexual harassment of men are rarely ever recorded owing to the scarcity of enactment. This subject has been established in numerous countries. Furthermore, 77 nations have professionally discussed the matter and passed gender-neutral legislation. But the Parliament of India is not acquiring the severe truth that men too possess modesty which can be outraged. On the flip view, University Grant Commission in beginning 2016, introduced Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal of Sexual Harassment Regulations which provides male students to lodge accusations toward the male, female, and transgender for sexual harassment. But because of weak mentality and suspicion of false claim commands no charge has been recorded yet.
Senior Advocate and Parliamentarian KTS Tulsihave presented a special member’s bill before the Upper House of Parliament on July 12, 2019. The Bill intends to alter the criminal charges to address sexual offenses gender-neutral. The Bill introduces alterations in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, Indian Evidence Act,1872, and Indian Penal Code 1860. On the opposite side, the Bill also commands for entering a new crime in the rape laws. The Central Government strongly contested the determination to create laws on rape gender-neutral, “holding in mind that sufferers of sexual harassment in India are predominantly women, and the perpetrators essentially were men.”
The Law Commission proposed in its 172nd Report that the term “person” should be applied for both male or female. Furthermore, “sexual assault” shall be substituted from the term “rape”.
The Bill was also presented in the SC in 2019. The Court had rejected the topic, and Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi stated that the matter needed enactment to be legislated, which was the field of Parliament.
The distinction between man and woman has become a sort of evil that is serving on the male levels of society. The notion that ‘modesty is a female concern and desire is a man subject’ is normal. Everyone has increased the voice toward equality and independence of women. Sadly, they ignore that men have dignity too and they further can be a sufferer of sexual crimes. We being youth have to recognize when we speak about equity we speak about its entire structure. Human rights and gender quality both involve men and women. On the opposite hand, to extend the range of gender equity the enactment first has to execute the gender-neutral legislation. Secondly, education should be carried on male harassment and to define sexual offenses toward men.
Author: Nishtha Kheria,
Amity Law School, Amity University Noida 4th Year 7th semester / Student