Former Ex-CJI UU Lalit raised strong concerns over the new criminal laws, saying India “lost an ideal opportunity” to protect adult male victims of sexual assault. He warned that after scrapping Section 377, “there is no window” for such victims to seek justice.
NEW DELHI: Former Chief Justice of India, Ex-CJI UU Lalit, recently spoke at a lecture organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association on the topic “BNS 2023 and IPC 1860: Continuity, Change and Challenges.”
During his address, Ex-CJI UU Lalit expressed serious concerns about the gender neutrality of sexual assault laws under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). He highlighted that lawmakers have missed an “ideal opportunity” to extend protection to adult male victims of sexual assault after the repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Recalling past reforms, Ex-CJI UU Lalit referred to the recommendations of the Justice JS Verma Committee after the 2012 Nirbhaya case. The committee had suggested amending Section 375 of the IPC to make it gender-neutral, and an ordinance was introduced in February 2013 to allow male victims to also be covered under the law.
Pointing out that Section 377 IPC, which earlier criminalised unnatural sexual intercourse including bestiality, has now been removed from BNS, Justice Ex-CJI UU Lalit asked:
Now, what if the one adult is actually sort of subjected to it forcibly and without his consent?…So therefore you have not only lost that opportunity of making it gender neutral, which the ordinance had thought of, but you have also dropped 377, which means that if a man without his consent is subjected to that kind of offence, then today where is the window to ventilate the grievance? There is none. And that to my mind is completely an incorrect idea.
He further warned about the seriousness of this gap by saying:
We have not only thrown the bathwater, we have also thrown the baby as well. So therefore we have lost the opportunity and made it completely a vacant idea where there is no grievance can be ventilated by a person who is a victim of that kind of crime.
At the same time, Ex-CJI UU Lalit welcomed some positive moves in BNS. He explained that under the IPC, Section 366A criminalised procuring a “minor girl” for prostitution, but this was not gender neutral. In contrast, Section 96 of the BNS now uses the phrase “procuring a child,” making the law applicable to boys also. He also praised the retention of gender-neutral wording in the new provisions corresponding to IPC Sections 372 and 373 on selling and buying minors for prostitution, which are now Sections 98 and 99 in BNS.
Justice Lalit’s observations also come in the backdrop of an earlier Supreme Court order in 2022, where the Court had refused to issue directions for making laws gender-neutral. At that time, a plea had asked for reconsideration of provisions under IPC relating to sexual harassment (Sections 354A-354D), criminal intimidation (Section 506), outraging modesty of a woman (Section 509), rape (Section 376), and cruelty to women (Section 498A).
However, the division bench had dismissed it stating:
The reliefs claimed in this writ petition is not capable of being granted by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction as that would constitute encroachment into legislative field. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
The petition, filed by law students Anam Kamil and Shrikant Prasad, argued that there is a rising trend of misuse of sexual offence laws by women, and men’s dignity and honour are often destroyed by mere allegations. They had submitted that
In today’s world, women are also harassing males and subjecting them to cruelty. Hence the petitioners have submitted that these laws should be amended according to the present needs and situation in the same manners as the decriminalization of Homosexuality by the Court in 2018.
Ex-CJI UU Lalit’s speech once again brings focus to the urgent debate on whether Indian criminal laws should adopt a truly gender-neutral approach, ensuring justice not only for women but also for men who are victims of sexual offences.
Explanatory Legal Table
| Law / Section | Old IPC / Provision | New BNS / Provision | What It Covers | Justice Lalit’s View / Case Context |
| Section 377 IPC | Criminalised “unnatural sexual intercourse” including homosexuality and bestiality | Removed from BNS | Earlier covered non-consensual homosexual acts and bestiality | Lalit said removing 377 without making laws gender-neutral leaves adult male victims without remedy. |
| Section 375 IPC | Defined rape as against a woman only (not gender-neutral) | Section 63 BNS (rape provisions, still not gender-neutral) | Covers only female victims of rape | Verma Committee (2013) wanted gender neutrality, but Parliament did not adopt it. |
| Section 366A IPC | Criminalised procuring a minor girl for prostitution or illicit intercourse | Section 96 BNS | Uses phrase “child”, making it gender-neutral (boys also protected) | Lalit welcomed this progressive change. |
| Sections 372 & 373 IPC | Selling or buying a minor girl for prostitution | Sections 98 & 99 BNS | Uses gender-neutral term “minor” or “child” | Lalit praised retention of gender-neutral approach. |
| Sections 354A–354D IPC | Sexual harassment, stalking, voyeurism, etc. – women-centric | Similar provisions in BNS (not gender-neutral) | Protection mainly for women | A 2022 petition asked to make these gender-neutral; SC dismissed it. |
| Section 376 IPC | Rape law, strictly women as victims | Section 63 BNS (rape) | Still gender-specific | Petitioners argued men too face rape/assault; Lalit echoes concern. |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by husband/relatives against a woman | Section 85 BNS | Still focused only on women | Petition argued for gender-neutrality due to misuse. |
| Section 509 IPC | Word/gesture/act intended to insult modesty of a woman | Section 79 BNS | Protects only women | Petitioners argued that men’s dignity also gets insulted, but law ignores it. |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation | Section 124 BNS | Neutral, applies to both genders | Was included in the 2022 plea for reconsideration. |
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual speakers (Ex-CJI UU Lalit) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.