Skip to main content

Women’s Safety vs. Men’s Rights: Has BNS Found the Balance?

Introduction

On July 1, 2024, India swapped its colonial Indian Penal Code for the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), promising a justice system fit for 2025. But as the ink dries, a fierce debate rages: Does BNS protect women’s safety without trampling men’s rights—or is it still a lopsided game? From the chilling Meerut murder case of March 2025, where a wife allegedly butchered her husband, to Atul Subash’s suicide in December 2024, blamed on legal harassment, the stakes are raw and real. This isn’t just law—it’s lives. Let’s unpack how BNS gender laws tackle women’s safety and men’s rights, and ask: Has India’s new criminal code struck the balance, or are we still picking sides?

Women’s Safety Under BNS: A Stronger Shield?

BNS doubles down on protecting women, building on decades of battling dowry deaths and domestic violence. Key provisions show their teeth:

  • Section 63 (Rape): Toughens penalties—seven years to life—making it cognizable and non-bailable, ensuring swift police action (BNSS Section 175).
  • Section 85 (Cruelty by Husband): Replaces IPC Section 498A, targeting abuse or dowry demands with up to three years’ jail. Still cognizable, still non-bailable—police can arrest on a wife’s word.
  • Section 69 (Sexual Intercourse by Deceit): A new addition, punishing men who trick women into sex with false promises (e.g., marriage)—up to 10 years.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) logged 4,28,278 crimes against women in 2021—32% tied to spousal cruelty. BNS aims to curb this, empowering women to fight back. Take the 2023 Delhi rape case—under BNS Section 63, police could’ve acted faster, no warrant needed. Women’s safety in India gets a louder voice, but at what cost?

Men’s Rights Under BNS: A Silent Scream?

Flip the coin—men’s rights India advocates cry foul. BNS offers no mirror laws for men facing abuse, leaving a gap:

  • Section 85’s One-Way Street: Only women can file cruelty claims—men alleging spousal torment have no equivalent. The Supreme Court dubbed its predecessor “legal terrorism” (Sushil Kumar Sharma, 2005) for misuse—false dowry cases ruining families.
  • No Gender Neutrality: Unlike Canada or the UK, where domestic violence laws cover all genders, BNS stays women-centric.
  • Real Pain: Atul Subash’s 2024 suicide note blamed fake charges under what’s now Section 85. In Meerut 2025, a man’s murder by his wife (BNS Section 103) sparked X posts asking: Where’s justice for him?

NCRB data shows men accounted for 75% of suicides in 2021—over 1,00,000 deaths—many linked to marital strife. Yet, BNS offers no helpline, no shield. Men’s rights activists argue: If women get armor, why are men left bare?

Section 85: Safety Net or Weapon?

BNS Section 85—ex-Section 498A—is the lightning rod. It’s cognizable (arrests without warrants) and non-bailable, meant to protect women from cruelty. But misuse stats sting: conviction rates hover at 10-15% (NCRB), suggesting many cases are flimsy—extortion or divorce ploys. In September 2024, the Law Ministry hinted at reforms to curb false claims, per X buzz and official statements. Yet, men like Atul, crushed by allegations, fuel the men’s rights India cry: Why no balance?

Where BNS Falls Short

  • No Recourse for Men: A husband beaten or harassed by his wife? BNS shrugs—general assault laws (Section 115) apply, but they’re weaker, often non-cognizable.
  • Cultural Blind Spot: India’s “men don’t suffer” mindset—75% of male suicides say otherwise—gets no legal echo.
  • One-Sided Speed: Women’s cases fly (cognizable); men’s crawl (non-cognizable or ignored).

The UK’s Domestic Abuse Act 2021 covers all genders—why can’t BNS? Critics say it’s stuck in 1983, when dowry laws birthed Section 498A, not 2025, where power dynamics shift.

Has BNS Found the Balance?

For women’s safety, BNS is a fortress—Sections 63, 85, and 69 arm women against violence and deceit. But for men’s rights, it’s a ghost town—no parity, no protection. The Meerut case tests punishment fairness; Atul’s death tests prevention. Balance? Not yet. BNS leans hard into women’s safety in India, but men’s rights in India languish. The Law Ministry’s 2024 review could tweak Section 85—will it? Justice demands both sides breathe.

What’s Next?

  • Gender-Neutral Laws: Add men to Section 85 or create a twin provision.
  • Misuse Checks: Mandate evidence before Section 85 arrests—end “legal terrorism.”
  • Support Systems: Helplines for men, not just women—mental health counts.

Conclusion

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is India’s justice reboot, but it’s half-finished. Women’s safety gets steel; men’s rights get smoke. In 2025, as cases like Meerut and Atul’s burn bright, we ask: Law, why one shield and not two? Balance isn’t picking winners—it’s lifting all. Share your story below—has BNS helped or hurt you? Spread this post—let’s demand Indian justice. 2025 sees every soul.

FAQs 

1. Can a man file a complaint for domestic violence under BNS?

  • Currently, domestic violence laws are primarily women-centric. However, there are ongoing discussions to introduce gender-neutral provisions.

2. What protections are available for women facing workplace harassment?

  • Women can seek relief under workplace harassment laws, including filing complaints with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

3. How can men protect themselves against false allegations?

  • Men falsely accused can file counter-complaints, seek legal assistance, and appeal for justice through appropriate courts.

4. What role does the judiciary play in maintaining the balance?

  • Courts ensure fair trials, investigate cases objectively, and deliver judgments that protect both women’s safety and men’s rights.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...