For decades we’ve seen headlines debating gender bias laws. In India gender, biased laws are created for empowering women. But most of the reasons given for the creation of biased laws seem to be unfair. We don’t have to look too far for such laws. The IPC defines rape (Section 375) as an act that can be committed only towards women, only by men. This is not a law that “favours” women because rape in itself is a despicable crime. But this means that if a man gets raped, he literally can’t even file the FIR, the most basic document in an official complaint, while a woman can. This is a glaring discrepancy in the IPC which has not been recognized at the legislative level to date.
498A (“Dowry Law”) – the foremost among these laws, with numerous cases of misuse reported every week and the Supreme court of India referring to it as “a new legal terrorism”. Going against the basic principle of the Indian legal system, the accused under this law is presumed guilty until proven innocent. To make matters worse, the charge under this law is also non-bailable. Widely used as a tool of extortion and intimidation by women, there are several thousand men who have been ruined and their families terrorized by this law. Refer to this website dedicated to the cause of supporting the victims of this law for more info.
Domestic Violence Act (2005) – another arbitrary law under which wife/female live-in partners can legally gain tyrannical control over the household. The definition of violence in this law is so expansive that it only takes a woman to feel insulted, for her husband to find himself on the wrong side of the law. Check this page out for more information.
Law on Sexual Harassment at Workplace – assumes that only women can be harassed, and has a provision that makes it a great risk for an organization to even employ women. Under this law, a manager may find himself in trouble if he gives a woman reporting to him work that is too challenging, requires her to work late to finish an important project or puts her in the same team as other members that she doesn’t like – because these satisfy the law’s definition of “creating a hostile work environment” for women.
IPC Section 304B – if a woman dies by burns or bodily injury, or in circumstances other than normal within 7 years of her marriage, the husband will be deemed to have caused the death and has the onus to prove his innocence. Male dominance was not enforced on society; rather it was part of evolution and natural choice for the survival of mankind. Even today, most men die to save common human beings from all-natural disasters
If Women are more unsafe today than they were before independence, men too are not very safe. You will find hundreds of cases where men are voiceless victims. The creation of a special section called “Crime against Women” itself denies men safety from those crimes committed against them. Simply because these crimes are committed against women doesn’t mean they are not committed against men. The absence of any recording mechanism denies the right to safety and equal treatment to men.
We see many viral videos where senior citizens are abused by their daughters-in-law. Men suffer from domestic violence from women too but can’t even report it. Women are granted maintenance irrespective of their behaviour in a marriage. Anyone who opposes women-friendly laws is misogynist, insecure- This is being said about the men who are branded as criminals on marriage and many of whom are highly educated. These men spend money from their pocket to help victims in need, give them free legal consultation or take leave from work to stand by the innocent families jailed under false 498a. These people shed a tear with victims or stand by the woman who is raped by another woman but can’t get justice under feminist rules.
Even with women-friendly laws, women are unsafe, gender-neutral laws will endanger them – Crime is not gender-dependent. To instil public confidence in our legal system, we need legal and policy reforms, else criminal women like Rohtak Sisters, that women who were seen beating ola drivers with sandals publically will continue to take bravery awards for being cruel to other women or men. A lot of them, and guess what, they aren’t biased against females but biased against men.
Under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, if the deceased has no will, the spouse, mother, and children inherit the property belonging to the deceased. The father is only entitled if the deceased does not have a spouse, mother, or children. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to amend and codify the law relating to intestate or unwilled succession, among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. It is hailed for its consolidation of Hindu laws on succession into one Act. The Hindu woman’s limited estate is abolished by the Act. Any property possessed by a Hindu female is to be held by her absolute property and she is given full power to deal with it and dispose of it by will as she likes. Parts of this Act were amended in 2005 by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
1956 – Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is another biased law, enacted in India in 1956 as part of the Hindu Code Bills. The Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 dealt specifically with the legal process of adopting children by a Hindu adult, as well as the legal obligations of a Hindu to provide “maintenance” to various family members including, but not limited to, their wife or wives, parents, and in-laws. A boy is entitled to maintenance only till he turns 18, whereas a girl is entitled to maintenance till she gets married or decides to provide for herself.
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, both the man and woman can claim permanent alimony and maintenance, but under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act of 1954, it isn’t so. There are several laws regarding rape in India, taking into consideration its prevalence in our country. However, most of these rape laws seem way too biased towards women where men stand at a terrible disadvantage. The stubbornness of this problem lies in the fact that it is rooted in our societal beliefs about men, women. We believe men should be ‘agentic’ (assertive, decisive, strong) and women should be ‘communal’ (warm, caring, sympathetic). These gender stereotypes clash with the prototype, i.e. the societal view of what a prototypical person should be. We all talk about equality of all genders, but sadly when it comes to the Indian constitution, it is far from realism. This is true that there was a time when the government had to compose special provisions in the constitution for women to ensure equality, but clearly, some of these provisions are undoubtedly unfair to men.