Legal Recognition of Male Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence: Challenges to Gender Justice in India

Abstract

Gender justice is conventionally associated with the protection and advancement of women because women have historically experienced structural discrimination, economic dependency, domestic abuse, sexual violence, and social exclusion on a disproportionate scale. The development of women-specific legislation in India has therefore been an essential component of substantive equality. However, gender justice in a contemporary constitutional democracy also requires recognition that victimhood is not biologically exclusive. Men may experience physical, emotional, economic, psychological, and sexual violence within intimate and domestic relationships, yet Indian law provides them with comparatively limited specialised remedies. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines an “aggrieved person” specifically as a woman, thereby excluding adult male victims from its specialised protection-order, residence, monetary-relief, and related mechanisms. Similarly, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 defines rape through a male perpetrator and a female victim. The BNS, which came into force on 1 July 2024, also omitted the former Section 377 IPC framework. Before enactment, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs specifically observed that this omission would create a gap concerning non-consensual sexual acts against men and transgender persons and recommended legislative inclusion of an appropriate provision.

This article examines the legal recognition of male victims of domestic and sexual violence in India through constitutional, socio-legal, and comparative perspectives. It does not argue that violence is gender-symmetrical or that women-specific protections should simply be removed. National Indian data continue to demonstrate the serious prevalence of violence against women; approximately 29 per cent of ever-married women aged 18–49 reported physical or sexual violence by a husband in NFHS-5. At the same time, smaller empirical studies indicate that male victimisation exists and remains under-researched. A community-based study of 1,000 married men in Haryana reported substantial experiences of emotional and other forms of partner violence, while simultaneously observing that gender symmetry did not exist regarding physical violence.

Drawing comparative lessons from the United States and United Kingdom, the article proposes an approach of inclusive substantive gender justice: gender-neutral access to basic legal protection combined with gender-responsive policies addressing the particular vulnerabilities experienced by women. Legal reform should be based upon harm, absence of consent, coercion, vulnerability, and abuse of power rather than rigid presumptions regarding the sex of either victim or perpetrator.