The Double Edged Sword: Women-Centric Laws In India — Protection, Misuse, And The Path To Gender Justice

Introduction: A Constitution Built on Equality

Progress within any society shows most clearly through how far women have advanced - this idea, voiced by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, reflects a core principle embedded in India's founding document. Born after long eras of male-dominated control, the Indian Constitution made equal rights for women not just a distant goal but a legal guarantee. Scattered across its framework - Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 39(a), and 42 - weave a network of protections aimed at fairness between genders. Built into law, this structure was never meant to maintain tradition; instead, it sought to reshape reality on more balanced grounds.

Years passed. New laws appeared. One after another focused on women - Equal Pay rules in 1976, then workplace safety measures in 2013 - each shaped by clear risks women encounter daily. Data helped shape them. Courts later strengthened their reach through strong rulings. Yet, as time moved forward and legal awareness deepened, questions began to surface. Could some of these protections, under particular conditions, be twisted beyond intent? Might tools built for fairness now sometimes serve unfair ends?

The Constitutional Framework: Equality with Special Protection

Equality stands at the heart of India’s constitutional framework. While Article 14 ensures equal treatment under law for all individuals, Article 15 bans sex-based discrimination - yet opens space for protective policies through Clause (3), allowing tailored support for women and children. Far from being inconsistent, this design reveals intent: treating people identically in unequal conditions may deepen disparity. The framers saw fairness not as uniformity, but as responsiveness to existing imbalances. Such choices were shaped by social reality, not abstract ideals.

So it goes - fairness under the Constitution means lifting up those left behind, not just applying rules the same way for everyone. Rooted in this idea are legal measures focused on women, which find their authority in such reasoning. Trouble does not start from intent, yet emerges through execution: safeguards meant to shield may slowly gather gaps allowing abuse. Over years, these openings grow. Then what once protected begins to threaten, placing at risk what Article 21 promises - existence with dignity and freedom over one’s body and choices.

Key Statutory Protections: Positive Impact and Structural Gaps

The POSH Act, 2013: Workplace Safety with Accountability Gaps

Born out of the Supreme Court’s pivotal Vishaka ruling in 1997 - triggered by the brutal gang rape of grassroots activist Bhanwari Devi - the POSH Act established a required system to tackle sexual harassment at work. Though data shows more than three-quarters of formal sector firms now comply, boosting safety for female employees. Yet gaps remain: men cannot file under it, complaints must arrive within 90 days, processes lack clarity, while anonymity when reporting is missing altogether, weakening real-world impact. Despite progress, these flaws curb how far protection truly extends.

The Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Broad Protection, Broad Concerns

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) 2005 was a watershed moment in Indian family law. For the first time, it recognised non-physical forms of abuse emotional, verbal, and economic and extended protections to women in live-in relationships, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013). It provides comprehensive remedies including protection orders, residence orders, and monetary relief.

Yet the Act's binary framework which presumes only women can be victims and Section 32(2) provision that a victim's statement can be treated as sufficient evidence without corroboration, have raised legitimate due-process concerns. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data suggests that a notable proportion of cases filed under the PWDVA are ultimately found to be false or unsubstantiated, raising questions about institutional safeguards.

Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS: The Most Contested Provision

One part of India’s laws focused on women stirs stronger debate than others: what used to be Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, today renumbered as Section 85 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, targeting abuse by a spouse or his family against a married woman. Created in 1983 because too many brides were dying or suffering due to dowry demands, its structure allowed immediate arrests - no need for court approval at first - which gave authorities swift power yet opened room for misuse. Though meant as protection, that speed and severity have sparked long arguments about fairness ever since..

NCRB data reveals that approximately 53.2% of cases filed under Section 498A have been found to be false, and out of roughly 90,000–1,00,000 annual investigations, around 10,000 complaints of dowry harassment are determined to be unsubstantiated. These figures, while not an argument for weakening genuine protections, underscore the urgent need for procedural safeguards.

Recent Judicial Developments

The Indian judiciary has been increasingly proactive in the past two years in striking a balance between women's protection and the prevention of misuse. The following judgments represent the most significant developments:

1. Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024)

In this widely discussed ruling, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra examined the scope of Section 498A IPC and its Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) equivalents Sections 85 and 86. The Court expressed concern though family tensions are common, the courtroom emphasized, turning small disagreements into legal charges risks distorting justice. Everyday quarrels, it noted, should not automatically become criminal matters just because emotions run high between spouses. One key point stood out: treating routine arguments as abuse stretches the law beyond intent.

Proponents of the judgment argue that this was a necessary corrective, given documented instances of Section 498A being weaponised in acrimonious separations to harass entire families without sufficient evidentiary basis. Critics, however,  argue that redefining cruelty more narrowly could downplay serious abuse. What might seem like routine disagreements under new court wording often masks ongoing mistreatment. Advocates stress how gender-based violence builds slowly, leaving few visible traces. When rulings highlight common arguments, they risk making survivors feel dismissed. Courts applying such standards too loosely may shut out valid claims early on. Subtlety in harm does not make it less real.

2. Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab 2024

This case arose from an FIR filed shortly after the husband initiated divorce proceedings. The complaint named not only the husband and his immediate family but also a distant cousin and the cousin's spouse individuals with no direct matrimonial connection to the complainant. The Supreme Court cautioned that allegations against persons not linked by blood, marriage, or cohabitation must withstand careful judicial scrutiny before criminal proceedings proceed.

Supporters of the ruling see it as protecting peripheral family members particularly those in nuclear households from being drawn into disputes that do not genuinely concern them. The timing of the FIR, they argue, raises legitimate questions about retaliatory intent.

On the other hand, critics note that domestic cruelty in Indian households often involves extended family members in deeply embedded ways including pressure from in-laws or collateral relatives and that setting too high an evidentiary bar at the implication stage may shield actual participants. The judgment's emphasis on relationship-by-blood-or-marriage as a threshold criterion has been questioned as potentially too narrow given the realities of joint and extended family living.

The Supreme Court of India quashed a matrimonial FIR Sections 498A/406 IPC against a distant relative, ruling that general, omnibus allegations used to implicate extended family members amount to abuse of process.

3. Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana 2024

The Supreme Court in the landmark judgment, quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, ruling that vague, omnibus, or generalized allegations against a husband's family cannot sustain a prosecution. The Court warned against the misuse of law to settle personal vendettas. Though accusations had been made, the bench stressed how weak they were - calling them baseless in every practical sense. Because names of relatives were dragged in without clear claims, the justices voiced alarm at such broad inclusion lacking substance. Such actions, noted the ruling, risk deep damage to lives even when guilt is nowhere shown. While legal tools exist to hold wrongdoers accountable, using them carelessly undermines fairness over time. So runs the warning embedded in this decision: power must not stretch beyond reason.

Looking at it differently, the ruling upholds a core idea in criminal justice - guilt should rest on individual proof, never assumption. When claims lack clarity, bundle too much together, or appear driven by revenge, judges can step in - and often must

4. Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal (2025)

This 2025 ruling is perhaps the most procedurally significant of the recent crop, offering a comprehensive framework for how Section 85 BNS cases should be handled. The Supreme Court, while mediating a settlement in a complex multi-complaint matrimonial dispute, laid down substantive procedural safeguards: mandatory written justification before arrest, referral to Family Welfare Committees, and a two-month mediation window before criminal proceedings are allowed to escalate.

Advocates for accused persons and family law reform have welcomed these safeguards as long-overdue structural checks, arguing that the absence of mandatory pre-arrest scrutiny had historically made Section 498A/85 susceptible to use as a pressure tactic in divorce and property negotiations.

Those representing survivors and complainants, however, raise concerns that adding procedural layers while well-intentioned may delay relief in genuine cases of ongoing cruelty. A mandatory mediation window, in particular, has been questioned: requiring a victim to engage in a structured process with her alleged abuser before criminal law can take its course may, in some cases, expose her to further harm or coercion. The judgment's durability will likely depend on how Family Welfare Committees are constituted and whether their functioning is subject to meaningful oversight.

The BNS 2024: Reform, Promise, and Missed Opportunities

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which replaced the colonial-era Indian Penal Code with effect from 1 July 2024, was presented as a comprehensive modernisation of India's criminal law. From the perspective of gender justice, it introduced some meaningful changes alongside notable limitations.

The BNS made several sexual offences gender-neutral for both victims and perpetrators. The phrase "minor girl" in procurement-related offences was replaced with "child" to cover both male and female children below 18 years. The phrase "importation of girls from a foreign country" was reworded to include boys. A new chapter titled "Offences Against Women and Children" was introduced, and sentencing for rape of minors was tiered by age under 18, 16, and 12. New offences such as sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promises were added under Section 69.

Despite the rhetoric of modernisation, the BNS retains the marital rape exception meaning a husband cannot be prosecuted for raping his wife under the new code, a matter still pending before the Supreme Court. The phrase "outraging the modesty of women" was retained rather than replaced with the gender-neutral "sexual assault." Transgender individuals receive no meaningful protection from sexual violence, with the BNS merely defining "transgender" by reference to the 2019 Act. Critics, including feminist legal scholars, have argued that by clubbing "Offences Against Women and Children" in a single chapter, the BNS perpetuates the regressive notion that women, like children, are inherently vulnerable and require paternalistic state protection rather than autonomous rights.

The Societal Dimension: Male Victims and the Silence of Stigma

It begins with silence- men harmed by intimate partners rarely see their pain reflected in laws meant to protect the vulnerable. Though society speaks often about gender injustice, it tends to overlook how rigid norms trap males too. Power is assumed, so suffering goes unseen. When a man reports mistreatment at home or work, responses lean toward disbelief rather than support. Assumptions shape outcomes: strength attributed to masculinity blocks recognition of harm endured. Laws designed for equity fail those who do not fit expected roles. A husband abused by his wife waits longer for validation. Even peers may mock instead of listen. Institutions built on outdated ideas respond slowly, if at all. Harm deepens when no name exists for what was experienced. Recognition lags behind reality.

Most overlooked, cases where women commit violence against men rarely lead to legal action. The law does not see them clearly - left in gaps shaped by assumptions about gender. Men facing abuse at home gain no shield under the PWDVA. At workplaces, the POSH Act offers no relief either. These laws, as they stand, ignore male suffering within straight relationships. What looks like a small omission plays out differently in courtrooms, homes, hospitals. People show up with injuries, fear, trauma - yet meet silence from statutes meant to protect. Their pain gets filtered out before it even reaches trial.

The Road Forward: Towards a Gender-Neutral, Victim-Centred Framework

Justice in a land of sharp disparities shapes the argument on gender-focused laws across India. Reform needs grounding - first, in fairness that sees difference without stigma. Second comes balance: protection must not become a restriction. Third rests here - laws ought to open doors, never define limits. Each principle holds weight when tradition meets change.

Not first fixing the process, but changing what the law covers. Weaker charges or easier bail under Section 498A/85 BNS won’t stop abuse - stronger checks will. Tools already exist: the 2014 Arnesh Kumar rule requiring review before arrest, welfare panels approved by the top court, plus a recent 2025 push for two months of talks in Shivangi Bansal’s case - all aim at balance. Real harm remains shielded; false claims get filtered. Each measure works inside current law, not outside it.

True fairness between genders comes next. Not every person affected by abuse fits the same profile, yet laws must still shield everyone. When rules stay rigid, some survivors slip through. Adjusting the POSH Act and PWDVA would let men and trans individuals gain the backing they need. Protection works best when it bends without breaking. Who suffers matters less than how we respond.

Penalties for wrongful prosecution come next. Right now, little stops people from submitting untrue claims. Compensation could go to those wrongly targeted, while witnesses caught lying might face consequences. Changes like these may reduce abuse, yet still guard real cases. One way or another, balance matters.

Conclusion

What trips up India’s gender-focused legislation isn’t the laws themselves, but how uneven enforcement distorts their purpose. Lately, rulings in cases like Achin Gupta and Dara Lakshmi Narayana show judges refining their role - not just applying statutes, yet also guarding against misuse. Payal Sharma’s matter, along with Shivangi Bansal’s, reveals a growing awareness: shielding those truly at risk matters as much as blocking legal abuse. These decisions inch towards balance - law as shield, not weapon. Intent meets scrutiny, slowly.

The BNS 2024 is a step forward, but an incomplete one. The retention of the marital rape exception, the failure to protect transgender victims, and the perpetuation of gendered language in key provisions are reminders that legislative reform in India too often reflects political expediency rather than constitutional principle. True gender justice, the kind Dr. Ambedkar envisioned, requiring not just laws that protect women, but a legal system that protects every person's dignity, autonomy, and liberty regardless of gender. That vision remains unrealised, but the direction, shaped by an increasingly assertive judiciary and a growing civil society, is promising.

References

1. Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 INSC 369)
2. Achin Gupta — Detailed case analysis: https://lawfoyer.in/achin-gupta-vs-state-of-haryana-anr/
3. Section 498A misuse — Verdictum coverage: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/achin-gupta-v-state-of-haryana-2024-insc-369-sections-85-86-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-1533673
4. Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal (2025) — Analysis of Section 85 BNS framework: https://greatlearnpro.com/section-85-bns-vs-section-498a-ipc-the-supreme-courts-balanced-approach-in-shivangi-bansal-case-2025/
5. Section 498A / BNS 85 misuse — comprehensive judicial safeguards overview: https://www.thelawadvice.com/articles/misuse-of-section-498a-ipc-section-85-86-bns-myth-reality-and-judicial-safeguards
6. Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana and Payal Sharma — covered in: https://cjp.org.in/section-498a-misuse-or-inappropriate-application/
7. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) — landmark pre-arrest inquiry ruling: https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-17979-landmark-arnesh-kumar-judgment-supreme-court-guidelines-on-misuse-of-section-498a-ipc-section-85-bns-and-dowry-laws.html
8. BNS Wikipedia entry (structure, marital rape exception, gender-neutral changes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Nyaya_Sanhita
9. BNS gender-neutral sexual offences — PTI/The Print: https://theprint.in/india/bns-makes-sexual-offences-gender-neutral-new-clauses-for-crime-against-children-women/2158526/
10. BNS analysis — PRS India (authoritative legislative summary): https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023
11. BNS gender justice critique — The Wire: https://m.thewire.in/article/law/bharatiya-nyay-sanhita-women-gender-trans-queer-justice
12. BNS gender bias analysis SSRN paper (2025): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5174269
13. Misuse patterns, NCRB data analysis: https://www.jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/download/3496/3159/15341
14. Kathpalia & Co. legal commentary on women-centric laws: https://www.kathpaliaco.com/legal-protections-or-legal-weapons-navigating-the-misuse-of-women-centric-laws-in-india/
15. Supreme Court 2024 women's rights judgments overview: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/Legal-Articles/supreme-court-judgments-on-womens-rights-2024-landmark-decisions-explained/
16. UK Government country report on gender-based violence in India (2025): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/india-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-women-fearing-gender-based-violence-india-august-2025-accessible

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.