The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) came into effect on July 1st, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). When the law was first introduced to the public in 2023, several concerning issues were highlighted. The bill was initially promoted as a progressive reform, aimed at replacing colonial laws and marking a turning point in the Indian judiciary system.

The colonial laws were criticized throughout history for lacking gender-neutral provisions for serious crimes such as assault and abuse. For instance, under the IPC, many sections imply that the perpetrator of sexual assault and abuse is always a man, and the victim is always a woman. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was intended to address and bring a change in these issues. However, it appears that these sections have been retained in the BNS.

While the issue of sexual assault and abuse against women remains crucial and necessary, the topic of male victims is still considered taboo. When those in power and the very laws meant to protect us contribute to this stigma, it can lead to severe and harmful consequences.

This research paper aims to highlight how the new BNS law affects men and their rights, with the hope of shedding light on this issue. It will also include a comparative analysis of the IPC and the BNS concerning men's rights, Section 377 and its removal.

IPC, BNS, and their Gender-Centric Sections:

1. Section 375 of the IPC and Section 63 of the BNS both define rape with the phrasing, "A man is said to commit 'rape' if he—" followed by clauses using the pronoun "she" for victims.
   Is sexual violence and rape only limited to women? According to a survey by the Save Family Foundation and My Nation Foundation, between 2005 and 2015, approximately 20.4% of men interviewed reported being victims of sexual violence.
   
   A particularly harrowing case in the United Kingdom involved Reynhard Tambos Maruli Tua Sinaga, who was convicted of 159 sex offenses. Notably, 136 of his victims were men. This example, among others, demonstrates that men are also subjected to such horrific crimes.
   
   Although the percentage of female victims is higher, completely ignoring male victims and pretending they do not exist is profoundly unjust. Societal norms often dictate that only men can be perpetrators and only women can be victims. Provisions that reinforce such harmful gender stereotypes are deeply problematic.
    
2. Section 354(A) of the IPC and Section 75 of the BNS both use the term "man" for perpetrators and continue to use the pronoun "she" while referring to the victims of sexual harassment.
   In April 2023, four male students accused two male employees of Kalakshetra of sexual harassment. There was no redress for them because neither the IPC nor the BNS includes provisions for compensating male victims.
   
   National studies by organizations like the RAND National Defence Research Institute, the National Sexual Violence Resource Centre, and the UC San Diego Centre on Gender Equity and Health report that only 43% of men, compared to 80% of women, report their experiences.

This discrepancy is attributed to four main factors:

• Men who speak up are often perceived as "weak" or "less masculine," leading to societal questioning of their masculinity.
• Men, like women, fear expulsion from schools or workplaces if they speak out against their perpetrators.
• Fear of ridicule.
• Many men believe their experiences are "invalid" simply because they are men.

When provisions contribute to these misconceptions, who can men turn to?
The #MeToo movement and the "Bear or Man" trend have surfaced many times, but when men spoke about their experiences, they were often dismissed with comments like, "Don't make this too much about yourself," and were labelled as "less masculine." It is crucial to recognize that heinous crimes like rape, assault, abuse, and harassment are not confined to a specific gender.

If perpetrators of these crimes disregard gender, why should we?

1. Section 354(B) of the IPC and Section 76 of the BNS address "Assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe." While the term referring to the perpetrator was changed from "any man" to "whoever" in the new BNS, the pronoun used for the victim remains "she/her," implying that only women can be victims under this section.
    
2. Section 354(C) of the IPC and Section 77 of the BNS define voyeurism. Voyeurism is commonly referred to as the "Peeping Tom Act." According to Wikipedia, "Voyeurism is the sexual interest in or practice of watching other people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other private actions."
   
   Voyeurism is a prevalent crime. Over 2000 cases of voyeurism were reported in 2021, demonstrating that is an actual problem in this country. Many hotels, restaurants, and trial rooms are known to have hidden cameras. While women are protected under the section of voyeurism, men are not.
   
   Section 354(C) of the IPC and Section 77 of the BNS start their definition of voyeurism with "Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman…." The new BNS replaced "any man" with "whoever" for the perpetrator but continued using gender-specific terms like "women" and pronouns "she/her" while referring to the victims.
    
3. Both Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 78 of the BNS begin their definitions of stalking with "any man" as the perpetrator and "woman" or "she/her" for the victim.
   In December 2019, a case from Maharashtra gained attention when a 22-year-old man was raped by four stalkers who used his Instagram to track him. Historically, there have been several cases of men being victims of stalking, with this particular case receiving significant media coverage.
   
   These comparisons of laws are just a few sets of examples. Although there were no gender-specific laws for men, unlike those for women, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code stood out as the sole section protecting men.

Well, at least until the implementation of the BNS.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code

Among all the sections of the IPC, Section 377 was unique. It was the only section that was gender-neutral. Introduced during British India, Section 377 addressed any unnatural sexual act against the will of God and man, stating, "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished…"

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

In the case of Navtej Singh V. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized consensual homosexual acts. After this ruling, Section 377 continued to address non-consensual sexual acts against adults (regardless of their gender identity), acts of carnal intercourse with minors, and bestiality.

Section 377 remained significant because it criminalized non-consensual acts across genders. It was inclusive and not gender-specific.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita consists of 358 sections, compared to the 511 sections of the IPC. Yet, it fails to include any provisions for men.

How can we label the new bills as "anti-colonial" and "progressive" when they follow the same pattern of gender bias? Furthermore, Section 377 was omitted in the new criminal law. Section 377 criminalized non-consensual acts regardless of the gender of the victim or the perpetrator.

"Male rape survivors suffer in silence. We need to help them speak out." -- Owen Jones.

When famous actor Terry Crews spoke out about his sexual harassment experience, rapper 50 Cent mocked him and his experience using insensitive memes. Comedian D.L. Hughley too commented on Crews's unfortunate experience saying- "I think it's hard for me to think that a dude with all those muscles can't tell an agent not to touch his ass," adding, "I don't understand. I think that now everybody's so into this notion that, 'It happened to me too.' Hey, motherf-, God gave you muscles so you could say no and mean it".

There is a history of deep-seated discrimination against men's experiences with sexual assault and abuse, and numerous high-profile cases highlight this issue. Men, like women, can also experience the "freezing-on-spot" reaction during an assault. Should men like Terry be victim-blamed solely because they "have muscles"? Does this imply they deserve it?

Many countries have criminalized acts against men, and it is time for India to join this list. Recently, a case in the Calcutta High Court was quashed against a female perpetrator due to the lack of provisions protecting men. Gender-neutral sections are essential. Cases involving male victims should be handled with the same respect, sensitivity, and importance as those involving female victims.

When Asaduddin Owaisi, President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and a five-time Member of Parliament representing the Hyderabad constituency in the Lok Sabha, raised the issue of the omission of Section 377 in Parliament, addressing the plight of male victims, he was met with ridicule. In response, he said, "Is rape something that only happens to women? Are men not also victims of rape?"

While the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita claims to be a "reformative law," many of its provisions are simply recycled from the IPC or have been made worse. This law reflects how backward our legal system still remains. If male victims and their experiences are still not treated equally, it demonstrates that we have failed as a society.

Men are less likely to discuss their experiences due to societal taboos. Many men believe their experiences are invalid because they are always told that they are supposed to enjoy them. When even the judiciary turns them away, they have no recourse. Advocating for women's rights is crucial, but advocating for men's rights is equally important. We cannot preach equality and equity while deliberately ignoring and excluding male victims. Men are not always perpetrators, and women are not always victims. No one, regardless of their gender, deserves to be vilified under the very laws that are meant to protect them.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Vandna Singh

Authentication No: AG458686364895-7-0824