Gender Neutrality In Rape Laws: A Comparative Study Of India, The United Kingdom, And Canada
- IJLLR Journal
- May 9
- 1 min read
Mahalakshmi S, BBA LL.B. (Hons.), CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Pune
ABSTRACT
Rape law has undergone a profound transformation over the past century, shifting from a framework rooted in patriarchal morality and property rights to one grounded in bodily autonomy, dignity, and human rights. Despite this global evolution, India's statutory definition of rape continues to identify only women as victims and only men as perpetrators, a gendered structure preserved even in the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This paper critically examines the constitutional inadequacy and international inconsistency of this approach through a comparative analysis of India, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Drawing on landmark case law, feminist jurisprudence, international criminal law, including the seminal decisions in Prosecutor v. Akayesu (ICTR, 1998) and Prosecutor v. Kunarac (ICTY, 2001) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the paper argues that India's genderspecific rape laws violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and fall short of India's international human rights obligations. The United Kingdom's Sexual Offences Act, 2003 and Canada's gender- neutral sexual assault framework under the Criminal Code serve as comparative models demonstrating that inclusive legal reform does not diminish protections for women but rather extends the guarantee of bodily autonomy to all persons. The paper concludes with specific legislative recommendations to align India's rape laws with constitutional values and international norms.
Keywords: Gender neutrality, rape law, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, bodily autonomy, comparative law, sexual violence, India, United Kingdom, Canada.
