A legal analysis of gender-biased Indian laws, Section 85 BNS, Section 69 BNS, rape presumptions, 498A misuse, and Supreme Court warnings on false cases against men.
NEW DELHI: In theory, Indian criminal law says every accused is innocent until proven guilty. In practice, many men discover the opposite the day an FIR is registered.
The punishment starts before conviction: arrest threat, bail battle, passport issues, job loss, family humiliation, litigation cost, and social branding. Years later, even an acquittal cannot return reputation, career, or peace.
This is the core problem with India’s gender-specific legal framework. It does not formally abolish the presumption of innocence, but in matrimonial, sexual offence, domestic violence and maintenance disputes, the process itself often treats the man as the offender first and the accused later.
1. SECTION 85 BNS: OLD 498A IN A NEW NUMBER
Section 498A IPC has now substantially moved into Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It punishes the husband or his relatives for cruelty against a woman with imprisonment up to three years and fine.
The problem is not that cruelty should go unpunished. The problem is that vague, omnibus allegations have repeatedly dragged husbands, parents, sisters, brothers, distant relatives and sometimes people living separately into criminal cases.
The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India warned that misuse of Section 498A may become “legal terrorism” and said frivolous complaints must be dealt with appropriately.
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court noted that Section 498A had become a weapon rather than a shield in some cases, and issued arrest safeguards under Section 41 CrPC because automatic arrests were destroying liberty.
In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court again warned against the tendency of implicating relatives of the husband through general allegations and held that such false implication, if unchecked, results in misuse of legal process.
The latest trend has not disappeared. In December 2024, the Supreme Court again observed that vague and generalised matrimonial allegations can become a tool for personal vendetta and arm-twisting.
2. SECTION 69 BNS: FAILED RELATIONSHIP CAN BECOME CRIMINAL TRIAL
Section 69 BNS criminalises sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil it. Punishment can extend up to ten years.
The wording is dangerous in practice because many adult consensual relationships end badly. A breakup, family pressure, caste objection, horoscope issue, or emotional dispute can later be converted into a criminal allegation.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that every breach of promise to marry is not rape. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court clarified that to vitiate consent, the promise must be false from inception and made in bad faith, not merely broken later.
In January 2025 also, the Supreme Court reiterated that only because physical relations were established on a promise to marry, rape is not automatically made out.
The law must punish deception. But it must not convert every failed adult relationship into a criminal prosecution against a man.
3. RAPE LAW PRESUMPTIONS SHIFT THE BURDEN
Under Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, where sexual intercourse is proved in certain rape prosecutions and the woman states before court that she did not consent, the court shall presume absence of consent.
This is a legal presumption. It may be rebuttable, but practically it places a heavy defensive burden on the accused man. In cases based on past relationships, WhatsApp chats, delayed FIRs, family opposition, or promise-to-marry allegations, the man often has to reconstruct years of personal history just to prove that the relationship was consensual.
4. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW IS GENDER-SPECIFIC
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines an “aggrieved person” as a woman in a domestic relationship who alleges domestic violence.
Again, genuine victims must be protected. But men facing domestic abuse, false residence claims, property pressure, and retaliatory litigation do not get an equal statutory remedy under the same framework.
The result is a one-way legal architecture: woman as complainant, man as respondent.
5. THE PROCESS BECOMES THE PUNISHMENT
The Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly acknowledged misuse, but the man still suffers first.
A false or exaggerated case can trigger:
- Arrest risk
- Anticipatory bail litigation
- Family members named as accused
- Passport and job consequences
- Maintenance and residence pressure
- Custody battles
- Social death before trial
- Years of hearings before discharge or acquittal
That is why the phrase “guilty until proven innocent” resonates with men. It is not a technical legal doctrine. It is the lived reality of men who enter the criminal justice system through gender-specific allegations.
6. WHAT COURTS ARE SAYING NOW
Courts are increasingly scrutinising vague allegations. Recent High Court and Supreme Court rulings have quashed cases where allegations were general, omnibus, or unsupported by specific material. For example, the Bombay High Court recently quashed cruelty charges against family members where accusations were “omnibus, general and vague.”
The Karnataka High Court also recently held that criminal law cannot be invoked merely for failed relationships without evidence of deception, while dealing with allegations under BNS provisions.
This is the correct constitutional approach: protect real victims, punish real offenders, but do not allow criminal law to become a weapon of negotiation, revenge, extortion, or social blackmail.
CONCLUSION
Indian law claims neutrality through constitutional principles, but many gender-specific statutes operate on a presumption that the man is the natural offender.
The issue is not women’s safety versus men’s rights. The issue is justice versus legal misuse.
A civilised legal system must protect women from genuine violence and protect men from false prosecution. Both can coexist. But for that, India must stop treating arrest, stigma and litigation as acceptable collateral damage when the accused is male.
The rule should be simple: investigate first, arrest later; verify first, prosecute later; punish the guilty, not the gender.
FAQs
No. Legally, every accused is presumed innocent. But in practice, several gender-specific laws create heavy pressure on men even before trial.
Broadly, yes. Section 85 BNS carries forward the offence of cruelty by husband or his relatives against a woman.
No. Courts have held that the promise must be false from the beginning and made in bad faith.
They can be named, but courts have repeatedly quashed cases based on vague and omnibus allegations.
The process itself becomes punishment: arrest fear, bail, social stigma, job loss, family harassment and years of litigation before acquittal.