The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that it is opposed to making the law pertaining to rape gender-neutral..Defending the gender-specific rape law, the Centre has stated that the decision was taken in view of the fact that victims of sexual harassment in the country are predominantly women..The statement was made in an affidavit filed by the Centre in a public interest litigation seeking to declare Sections 375, 376 of the Indian Penal Code as null, void and unconstitutional in view of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India..The petitioner, advocate Sanjjivv Kkumar, had sought replacement of the above sections with gender-neutral sections as envisaged under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013..The Central Government claimed that the decision to maintain status quo by keeping Section 375 gender-specific qua the perpetrator of the offence was taken after due deliberations at various levels with different stakeholders including women’s groups. The affidavit reads,.“These sections have been enacted to protect and keep a check on the rising levels of sexual offences against women in India…Keeping in view the ambit of POCSO Act which covers all forms of sexual offences against minors and section 377 of the IPC, it was felt that existing definition of rape under section 375 should be left untouched.“.The Centre also apprised the Court of the actions taken by it to implement the recommendations of the 172nd Report of the Law Commission..Apart from suggesting various changes to Sections 376, 376A, and 376D for enhancement of sentence, and adding an explanation to Sections 376B-376D for defining sexual intercourse etc, the Law Commission had also recommended making Section 375 IPC gender-neutral..It was submitted that after the receipt of the Report, various wide-ranging consultations were held and subsequently, a high powered committee was formed. Finally, a draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2012 was finalized. The Bill was approved by the Cabinet and presented before the Lok Sabha. It was then referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee..However, while the Bill was still pending before the Standing Committee, a committee headed by Justice JS Verma was constituted after the December 2012 Delhi gang rape..In its Report dated January 23, 2013, the Verma Committee agreed with most of the provisions in the 2012 Bill, resulting in a broad convergence of the two Reports on various issues including the issue of gender-neutral rape laws. This ultimately culminated in the 2013 Criminal Ordinance..Subsequently, after considering the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, discussions with various stakeholders and women’s groups etc, it was decided that the section under the Indian Penal Code relating to sexual offences should not be kept gender-neutral qua the perpetrator of the offence. The pre-2013 Ordinance status should be restored, the Central Government concluded..Thus, a draft replacement Bill, namely the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013, was prepared with modifications of “consequential nature” such as making rape law gender-specific qua a male perpetrator, the Centre informed the High Court.
The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that it is opposed to making the law pertaining to rape gender-neutral..Defending the gender-specific rape law, the Centre has stated that the decision was taken in view of the fact that victims of sexual harassment in the country are predominantly women..The statement was made in an affidavit filed by the Centre in a public interest litigation seeking to declare Sections 375, 376 of the Indian Penal Code as null, void and unconstitutional in view of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India..The petitioner, advocate Sanjjivv Kkumar, had sought replacement of the above sections with gender-neutral sections as envisaged under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013..The Central Government claimed that the decision to maintain status quo by keeping Section 375 gender-specific qua the perpetrator of the offence was taken after due deliberations at various levels with different stakeholders including women’s groups. The affidavit reads,.“These sections have been enacted to protect and keep a check on the rising levels of sexual offences against women in India…Keeping in view the ambit of POCSO Act which covers all forms of sexual offences against minors and section 377 of the IPC, it was felt that existing definition of rape under section 375 should be left untouched.“.The Centre also apprised the Court of the actions taken by it to implement the recommendations of the 172nd Report of the Law Commission..Apart from suggesting various changes to Sections 376, 376A, and 376D for enhancement of sentence, and adding an explanation to Sections 376B-376D for defining sexual intercourse etc, the Law Commission had also recommended making Section 375 IPC gender-neutral..It was submitted that after the receipt of the Report, various wide-ranging consultations were held and subsequently, a high powered committee was formed. Finally, a draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2012 was finalized. The Bill was approved by the Cabinet and presented before the Lok Sabha. It was then referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee..However, while the Bill was still pending before the Standing Committee, a committee headed by Justice JS Verma was constituted after the December 2012 Delhi gang rape..In its Report dated January 23, 2013, the Verma Committee agreed with most of the provisions in the 2012 Bill, resulting in a broad convergence of the two Reports on various issues including the issue of gender-neutral rape laws. This ultimately culminated in the 2013 Criminal Ordinance..Subsequently, after considering the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, discussions with various stakeholders and women’s groups etc, it was decided that the section under the Indian Penal Code relating to sexual offences should not be kept gender-neutral qua the perpetrator of the offence. The pre-2013 Ordinance status should be restored, the Central Government concluded..Thus, a draft replacement Bill, namely the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013, was prepared with modifications of “consequential nature” such as making rape law gender-specific qua a male perpetrator, the Centre informed the High Court.
