INTRODUCTION
Over the last 200 years, our globe has undergone the most dynamic, etched-in-memories-and-history-books changes. Today, there is endless deliberation over the rights of the ‘Third Gender’ and people belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community. However, Modern History has records of centuries of oppression, repression and suppression of women and their basic liberties.
Feminism, as a term, was officially used for the first time in 1837 by a French philosopher[1] but the struggle for women’s rights has been prevalent since Hector was a pup.
There was the existence of ‘Proto-feminists’[2] who strived to achieve Gender Equality way before people were aware of the term feminism; the great philosopher Plato was considered a prodigious example.
The four waves of feminism over the years have had the strongest impact by systematically providing women with the impetus to attain freedom from the shackles of patriarchy, infanticide and chronicled observations of women being treated as the inferior gender.
However, in the past two centuries, with the formidably staunch shift of women from the domestic sphere to the public sphere at large, with them taking over jobs that were deemed to be suitable for men, there has also been evidence of women misusing the movement by discriminating against men. As outlandish as it may seem, men have been demanding probes into the misappropriation of remedies provided to the opposite gender and gender-specific statutes that annihilate the ethos of feminism.
There have been several cases where men could not find any grievance redressal system for themselves if they were subjected to harassment or cruelty, at the hands of women or men themselves.
Dowry Laws
The first official voice that rose for men in India was in 1988 when an advocate, Ram Prakash Chugh opined for a ‘Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Husbands’ to prevent men from suffering physical as well as mental trauma due to the false and futile complaints regarding dowry demands filed against them.[3]
The Supreme Court in a landmark decision in Rajesh Sharma & Others v State of U.P.[4] directed to change the modes of arrest under dowry laws which led to the immediate detention of the accused earlier. It was also observed in a previous judgement that such feminist laws are being used as ‘weapons’ rather than ‘shields’.[5]
Domestic Violence
The definition of Verbal Abuse under the Domestic Violence Act is so expansive and broad, that it can easily be misused by construing or rather misconstruing the male’s words.
The former President of our country, Pratibha Patil articulated that provisions related to Domestic Violence are heavily misused and misinterpreted, leading to some innocent lives being ruined due to the easy access women get, especially in urban areas, to seek vengeance by lodging such complaints.
Section 498-A[6] of the Indian Penal Code is gender biased and only provides remedies to married women for cruelty by their husband or their family. The Indian Centre for Social Research in a study, stated that ‘educated and independent-minded women misuse the section’. [7]
In the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India[8], the Supreme Court concurred that vengeance and hostility at home are some of the main reasons for filing complaints under Section 498-A of IPC.
Sexual Assault
Section 354[9] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 only deals with outraging the modesty of a woman, not a man, even though there are several unreported cases of men having to deal with sexual violence.
The Justice Verma Committee report released in 2013 acknowledged that there is a strong possibility of sexual assault on men too apart from other genders, therefore, there is a need for neutral provisions. The World Health Organisation (WHO) also noted that 12-16% of men globally have had such experiences, even in childhood.[10]
In the case of Sakshi v Union of India[11], it was considered necessary for laws relating to punishment for rape (Section 375[12] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) to be amended and their ambit expanded to include other genders.
In another case, Girdhar Gopal v State[13], the court elucidated Section 354 to punish both men and women for committing any offence of such nature.
The 172nd Law Commission Report recommended that the law related to rape must hold accountable or provide relief to both genders.[14]
There are other cases like that of Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand[15] wherein it was held that
several instances of hyperbolic and over-implied statements to describe incidents have been reported as complaints.
In the case of Narendra v K. Meena[16], constant duress directed towards the husband by the wife to abandon dependent parents was considered a ground for divorce.
In another case of Raj Talreja v Kavita Talreja,[17] malicious accusations made by the wife against her husband were also deemed to be grounds for divorce, amounting to mental cruelty.
Men’s commission
The National Commission for Women has had a huge impact in spreading awareness amongst women regarding crimes committed against them and the grievance redressal mechanism. Similarly, there has been an uproar in the past few years with men raising demands for a similar commission for their representation. Advocate Mahesh Kumari Tiwari demanded a National Commission for men by citing the NCRB data of 2021[18] which found out that around 33% of men committed suicide because of issues at home and 5% due to matrimony-related disputes. The Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the same.[19]
Vaastav Foundation and Mashal Foundation are some examples of organisations that sensitise people about the need for gender-neutral laws in the country and how the notions of equality are reversing and breaking down due to such injustice.[20]
In June 2024, Dr Amjad Khan and Mr Sandeep Pawariya, members of the Save India Family Foundation, staunchly organised a bike ride all over the country, collecting acknowledgements from people who support their cause of demanding a National Men’s Commission, similar to that of Women’s.[21]
Conclusion
When the notion of feminism came into existence almost two centuries ago, little did we know that it would pick pace and shift gears so quickly, and to the point of being reversed. In rural areas, women still need education and sensitisation. Despite gender-specific laws in force, the crime rate against females in India is not on the decline. Rather, these laws have had an antithetical effect due to women in urban areas trying to exploit the liberal attributes of such provisions.
Such times call for recognition of the third gender and upliftment of women, especially in rural areas or those Below the Poverty Line. At the same time, there is a buoyant wave of men demanding rights in the form of gender-neutral laws. Once a man is accused of such heinous crimes, he is always looked down upon in society even if he is acquitted later. Movements like #MeToo or cases like Depp v Heard[22] have created a stronger pandemonium through which there has been assertive evidence of false implications.
A large strata of society has forgotten the true meaning of feminism as equality and some never attempted to understand it. Despite the term sounding feminine, it was ultimately coined to provide equal opportunities in every sphere for every gender. It took root in uniting women to fight for what they deserve and would continue to thrive by providing each person with the same because that is what it aims for and stands by.
Author(s) Name: Jasmine Singh (Army Institute of Law, Mohali)
References-
[1] ‘From Suffrage To Sisterhood: What Is Feminism And What Does It Mean?’ (Dictionary.com, 1 March 2024) <https://www.dictionary.com/e/womens-movement-what-does-feminism-actually-mean/> accessed 6 August 2024
[2] Norton, Mary Beth, ‘Proto-Feminism in Seventeenth-Century New England’ [1981] RAH 9 324
[3] Aditi Pattnaik, ‘The Legal and Social Challenges faced by Men in India: A Detailed Analysis’ [2022] JCLJ 988
[4] Rajesh Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh [2017] SCC OnLine All 2512
[5] Jyotika Kalra, ‘Misuse of dowry laws and the failure of the system’ (The Hindu, 6 August 2017) <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/misuse-of-dowry-laws-and-the-failure-of-the-system/article19435399.ece> accessed 26 June 2024
[6] The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 498A “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
[7] Vardaan Bajaj, ‘The Grey Areas of Domestic Violence Laws in India’ [2016] SCC OnLine Blog OpEd 14
[8] Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) 141/2005
[9] The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 354 “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
[10] Ishita Mittal, ‘Gender-Biased Punishments under IPC’ [2023] JCLJ 773
[11] Sakshi v Union of India [2004] SCR 723
[12] The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 375
[13] Girdhar Gopal v State [1953] Cri LJ 964
[14] Shubhi Verma and Alok Anand, ‘Gender-Neutral laws – Is India ready?’ [2022] JCLJ 1671
[15] Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand [2010] 7 SCC 667
[16] Narendra v K. Meena [2016] 9 SCC 455
[17] Raj Talreja v Kavita Talreja [2017] 358 SC
[18] Sheryl Sebastian, ‘Plea On ‘Increasing Suicides Among Husbands’ : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking ‘National Commission For Men’’ (LiveLaw, 3 July 2023) <https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-dismisses-pil-seeking-national-commission-for-men-to-deal-with-increasing-suicide-rate-among-married-men-231743?infinitescroll=1> accessed 26 June 2024
[19] Mahesh Kumar Tiwari v Union of India [2023] Writ Petition (Civil) 10740/2023
[20] Raina Assainar, ‘Riding For Cause: Bikers Rally Across India For Men’s Rights’ (Free Press Journal, 14 June 2024) <https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/riding-for-cause-bikers-rally-across-india-for-mens-rights> accessed 27 June 2024
[21] Ibid
[22] Depp v Heard [2019] CL 2911
