- Mr. Adil Ameen

5th-year B.A.LL.B (Hons.), Chanakya National Law University, Patna

Introduction

In the wake of the tragic Bengaluru techie case, where a man tragically ended his life citing prolonged legal harassment during a marital dispute, a deeper question resurfaces: Are Indian laws truly just, or selectively protective? This incident, along with a growing number of alimony abuse and harassment cases, has reignited debates about the gendered assumptions embedded in our legal system. While laws like IPC 498A and the Domestic Violence Act were crafted to safeguard women, often justifiably, cases of misuse reveal the urgent need to re-examine their scope and application.

Through the lens of Feminist Theory of Difference, which acknowledges that men and women have different lived experiences rather than identical needs, this issue becomes more nuanced. Gender-sensitive doesn't always mean woman-centric; true justice lies in acknowledging diverse vulnerabilities, including those faced by men.

In this context, it becomes crucial to decipher: What is Men’s Rights Activism (MRA) in India, and what are their key demands regarding gender neutrality in laws? In what ways do Indian family and criminal laws presume guilt based on gender? How can feminist theory be interpreted to support, rather than oppose, the idea of gender-neutral laws? Is protection that compromises fairness truly aligned with the principles of natural justice?

Understanding Men’s Rights Activism in India

Men’s Rights Activism in India has gained traction over the past two decades as a response to what many believe are systemic biases in the country’s legal and social frameworks. While feminism has historically addressed the oppression and inequality faced by women—and rightly so—MRA contends that in the process, certain legal provisions have evolved in a way that discriminates against men.

The roots of MRA in India can be traced back to the early 2000s, with organisations like the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) emerging in response to widespread misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, a law meant to protect women from dowry-related harassment. Activists claimed that this law, while essential, was being exploited to settle personal scores, often resulting in false arrests and social stigma for innocent men and their families.

MRA in India focuses on several key issues: false accusations of domestic violence and sexual harassment, gender-biased child custody decisions, lack of mental health support for men, and absence of shelters or helplines for male victims. It also calls for the recognition of male suicide linked to matrimonial disputes as a serious public health and legal issue.

Rather than seeking to undermine women’s rights, many in the MRA space assert that their goal is equity, not dominance. They argue for gender-neutral laws and balanced narratives, emphasising that legal protections should apply based on vulnerability, not gender alone.

Gender-Specific Laws in India: A Call for Neutrality

To address deep-rooted gendered violence, harassment, and discrimination against women legal system in India has long incorporated gender-specific protections to safeguard women. While these laws were created with the noble aim of correcting historical injustices, Men’s Rights Activists argue that some of these provisions now operate with a presumption of male guilt and offer no parallel protection to male victims. 

The demand for gender-neutral laws in India stems from perceived imbalances in the current legal framework, which many argue reinforce gender stereotypes and exclude male and LGBTQ+ victims from legal protection. One key example is Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the former IPC 498A and criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a woman. While aimed at addressing serious issues like dowry harassment, this provision presumes that only women can be victims, effectively excluding men who may suffer similar abuse from their spouses or in-laws. Men’s rights advocates (MRAs) have raised concerns about its non-bailable, non-compoundable nature and its alleged misuse in marital disputes, citing findings from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the Law Commission.

Similarly, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, offers civil remedies such as protection orders, residence rights, and maintenance, but limits these protections exclusively to women. This legal architecture leaves male victims without recourse, despite documented cases of abuse affecting these groups. MRAs argue that this institutionalises a one-sided narrative, assuming only women can be victims in domestic settings.

Another area of contention is Section 73 of the BNS, which criminalises assault or criminal force used to outrage the modesty of a woman. Retaining the gender-specific language of its predecessor (IPC 354), it continues to recognise only female victims of sexual harassment, leaving men and non-binary individuals unprotected. Likewise, Section 63 of the BNS, which defines and penalises rape, maintains a traditional male-perpetrator, female-victim model. This definition excludes male and transgender victims, as well as cases involving female-perpetrated sexual violence, despite increasing global acknowledgement of such scenarios.

One of the most emotionally painful issues raised by Men’s Rights Activists in India is the perceived bias to child custody in family courts. While the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and personal laws allow both parents to seek custody, in practice, custody is overwhelmingly granted to mothers, especially when the child is young. Fathers, even if they are financially supporting the child through court-mandated maintenance or alimony, often face severe restrictions in accessing or spending time with their children. Visitation rights are either minimal, frequently violated, or ignored altogether. This leads to what many describe as “legalised alienation,” where they are reduced to mere financial providers, stripped of meaningful parental involvement. The trauma of being separated from one’s child—despite fulfilling all legal responsibilities—has become a central grievance in the MRA movement, prompting calls for shared parenting laws and stricter enforcement of visitation orders to ensure that a child’s bond with both parents is preserved.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013—commonly known as the POSH Act—was a landmark step in protecting women from harassment at the workplace. However, a growing body of criticism highlights that the law is entirely one-sided, offering protection only to women while excluding male, transgender, or non-binary individuals who may also face harassment. In an era where workplace diversity is expanding, this gender-specific approach has been called outdated and discriminatory. Additionally, some critics argue that Internal Committees (ICs) set up under the Act lack adequate checks and balances, leading to concerns about bias, lack of due process, and reputational harm in cases of false or exaggerated complaints. Men’s Rights Activists are not denying the need for strong protections for women—they are advocating for gender-neutral workplace policies that ensure safety and fairness for all employees, regardless of gender. They argue that sexual harassment is a power-based, not gender-exclusive, abuse—and the law should reflect that evolving understanding.

While these laws have protected countless women, Men’s Rights Activists argue for reform that recognises abuse, harassment, and violence as issues not bound by gender. Globally, several countries have already moved in this direction. The United Kingdom’s Domestic Abuse Act, 2021, for example, is entirely gender-neutral, recognising both male and female victims and perpetrators. Canada’s Criminal Code takes a similar approach, ensuring legal remedies for all survivors of abuse without presumption. In Australia, both men and women can seek restraining orders and support under domestic violence laws, acknowledging that abuse can come from any direction. In India, the legal framework currently assumes men as default aggressors and women as default victims. MRA voices seek not the rollback of protections for women, but the extension of protections to all, irrespective of gender.

A Critical Perspective through the Feminist Theory of Difference

In contemporary Indian legal discourse, the demand for gender neutrality has gained significant traction, especially in laws related to sexual violence, domestic abuse, and family law. While this movement seeks to provide equitable legal recognition to all genders—especially men and LGBTQ+ individuals—it is essential to critically assess this call through the lens of the feminist theory of difference, which asserts that equality does not mean sameness and that legal frameworks must account for the historical and structural subordination of women.

The feminist theory of difference emerged in response to liberal feminist demands for formal equality. Thinkers like Carol Gilligan and Iris Marion Young argue that striving for sameness under patriarchal standards often leads to the erasure of the unique experiences of women. This perspective advocates  that laws should not only treat everyone the same but must also recognise the asymmetries in power, social roles, and lived experiences shaped by gender.

From this vantage point, a blanket application of gender neutrality in Indian laws could risk masking deeply embedded patriarchal structures. For instance:

• Sexual violence laws: Laws like Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code currently define rape as a crime committed by a man against a woman. Critics argue for gender neutrality to include male and non-binary victims. While this is important for inclusivity, the difference feminist perspective cautions that women experience sexual violence in a systemic and gendered way, often tied to social control, honour, and caste-based violence. Making these laws gender-neutral without acknowledging this systemic targeting can dilute protections for women.

• Domestic violence laws: The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005) is also being criticised for being “biased.” However, this Act emerged from recognition of the disproportionate and gendered burden of domestic violence on women, often linked to dowry, economic dependence, and patriarchal family structures. A neutral law might obscure this structural violence.

Conclusion and Way Forward

The call for gender neutrality in Indian laws is urgent and valid in its aim to address emerging identities and injustices. However, when viewed through the feminist theory of difference, it becomes clear that a nuanced approach is essential—one that recognises gender-specific experiences, systemic inequality, and the enduring legacy of patriarchy. Without such a critical lens, gender-neutral laws risk re-entrenching the invisibility of women’s oppression under the guise of formal equality. It is a call to recognise that dignity, justice, and protection from abuse are not gendered needs—they are human rights. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life with human dignity, and this promise must extend to every individual, irrespective of gender. When we speak of “women’s dignity” under Article 21, we must also ask: can we truly uphold human dignity if men are denied fair treatment, due process, or protection under the same legal system?

Instead of merely replacing "woman" with "person" in legal texts, reforms must:

• Recognise intersectional vulnerabilities (e.g., caste, class, sexuality, and religion).

• Introduce parallel or expanded frameworks that protect men and LGBTQ+ individuals without reducing protections for women.

• Ensure that gender neutrality does not become gender blindness, where the law fails to see the very real, material conditions of inequality.

Hence, the pursuit of gender justice must shift from a one-dimensional focus on women’s protection to a balanced, inclusive framework that affirms the rights of all genders. Only then can we build a legal and social order that reflects the true meaning of equality—and a society which truly honours the constitutional promise of life with human dignity for all.