India’s constitutional and legislative framework for women’s rights presents one of the most elaborate systems of legal equality in the developing world. Over the decades, several landmark statutes, such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, have been enacted to strengthen gender justice [1]. However, despite these extensive laws, the reality of their implementation remains unsatisfactory. Weak enforcement institutions, patriarchal mindsets, and minimal accountability continue to undermine the entire justice process. The problem, therefore, lies not in the legislative inadequacy but in the gender bias that influences institutional behavior, social norms, and political commitment.
On paper, Indian legal frameworks appear progressive, but the implementation gap remains vast. Victims of violence often face humiliation, dismissal, or indifference at the hands of authorities and even within families. For instance, women seeking relief under the Domestic Violence Act frequently encounter police officials who suggest reconciliation for the sake of family honor rather than offering legal protection [2]. This pattern breeds a culture of impunity and turns protective legislation into symbolic gestures rather than practical safeguards. As scholars have pointed out, laws become deterrents only when applied consistently and impartially [3]. When filtered through social prejudices, they lose their moral and deterrent value.
The metaphor of “laws without teeth” aptly captures the gender justice crisis in India. The infamous case of Tukaram
v. State of Maharashtra (1979), commonly known as the Mathura Rape Case, demonstrated how deeply entrenched stereotypes can distort the judicial process. In this case, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused policemen, implying that the survivor’s past sexual history undermined her credibility [4]. The verdict overlooked the coercive setting of custodial rape and institutional power dynamics. Following widespread public outcry, the Indian Parliament amended the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act in 1983 to redefine consent and criminalize custodial rape [5]. Nevertheless, this case remains an enduring reminder that prejudiced judicial thinking can dilute even the strongest laws.
Such institutional bias continues to manifest in modern judicial decisions. In AparnaBhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the Supreme Court criticized a lower court order granting bail on the condition that the accused request the complainant to tie him a Rakhi. The apex court held that such conditions trivialized sexual violence and reinforced patriarchal stereotypes [6]. Similarly, in Madan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015), suggestions for marriage between the victim and the accused revealed the persistence of moralistic notions of honor and family reputation in judicial reasoning [7]. These cases illustrate that even when reformist laws exist, the cultural prejudices of decision-makers continue to subvert gender justice.
Further, the ethos of law enforcement agencies perpetuates the enforcement deficit. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB, 2023), over 4,00,000 crimes against women were recorded in 2022, with nearly one-third of cases falling under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code related to cruelty by husbands or relatives [8]. Despite stricter legislation, such as amendments to the Criminal Law (2018), conviction rates remain low due to procedural delays, police insensitivity, and inadequate victim support mechanisms [9]. The persistence of these trends shows that without institutional accountability and gender-sensitive training, legislative deterrence remains notional.
Political accountability is another crucial factor. While gender equality frequently appears in policy discourse, it is often treated as symbolic idealism rather than a governance priority. Budget allocations for women’s safety schemes remain inadequate, and periodic audits of law enforcement systems are rare [10]. Reports by international organizations such as the UN Women (2024) have noted that India’s major challenge lies in addressing gender stereotyping within institutions, not merely in legislating new rights [9].
In contrast, several European nations demonstrate how policy coherence and cultural reform can bridge the law-practice gap. Sweden’s 2018 sexual consent law established an affirmative consent model that shifts the burden of proof onto demonstrating voluntary participation [11]. Germany’s domestic violence statute mandates immediate police intervention and provides shelters within a fixed time frame [12]. These models merge law with proactive social empowerment, proving that gender equality becomes substantive when procedural integrity is combined with cultural sensitivity and state commitment.
In India’s case, therefore, the challenge is not lawlessness but the persistence of a patriarchal social culture that weakens legal implementation. Reform requires an integrated approach encompassing legal, institutional, and societal levels. First, periodic gender audits and institutional reviews should be mandated to assess enforcement effectiveness. Judicial officers and police personnel must undergo ongoing gender-sensitization and accountability evaluations [13]. Establishing a Gender Justice Audit Commission at national and state levels would help track compliance and ensure corrective measures against institutional negligence.
Social transformation must parallel these measures. Education curricula should integrate gender equality principles from the primary level to challenge discriminatory mindsets early. Civic education and public awareness campaigns— through media and community initiatives—can reconstruct public consciousness around women’s dignity and rights [14]. Empowering local women’s groups, self-help organizations, and community networks as first responders can ensure victims’ access to legal, psychological, and medical support in a non-intimidating environment.
Ultimately, the success of gender justice reforms depends on political will. Legislators and administrators must move beyond token gestures by allocating adequate funds, monitoring implementation rigorously, and mainstreaming gender equality in development policies. The judiciary, in turn, should cultivate a jurisprudence of substantive equality grounded in real social contexts rather than abstract formalism. Only through such comprehensive alignment between law, institutional practice, and social consciousness can gender justice transcend symbolic promise and become a lived reality.
In conclusion, India’s gender justice system stands at the crossroads of aspiration and implementation. Legislative reforms alone cannot ensure equality if the enforcing institutions remain influenced by prejudice. Bridging the enforcement gap demands dismantling patriarchal structures embedded within law enforcement, judiciary, and governance mechanisms. Gender equality should not be pursued as a legal abstraction but as a collective ethical and civic obligation. Until the State, society, and institutions internalize this transformation, progressive gender legislation in India will remain, in effect, a law without teeth.
References
- Government of India. (2013) The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. New Delhi: Gazette of India.
- Kumar, N. and Gupta, S. (2021) “Domestic Violence, Institutional Failure, and Gender Bias in India,” Journal of South Asian Studies, 39(2), pp. 221–239.
- Baxi, U. (2012) The Future of Human Rights. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
- Indian Law Reports. (1979) Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, Supreme Court of India, AIR 1979 SC 185.
- Government of India. (1983) The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983. New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice.
- Supreme Court of India. (2021) AparnaBhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 230].
- National Judicial Academy. (2015) Madan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Case Analysis Report. Bhopal: NJA Press.
- National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). (2023) Crime in India 2022: Statistics Report. New Delhi: Government of India.
- UN Women. (2024) Justice for Women and Girls: Progress and Challenges in South Asia. New York: UN Women. [10] CEDAW Committee. (2014) Concluding Observations on the Combined Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports of India. United Nations, Geneva.
- Swedish Ministry of Justice. (2018) Consent Legislation in Sexual Offenses Act (SFS 2018:601). Stockholm:
Government Offices of Sweden.
- European Institute for Gender Equality. (2020) Gender Equality Index – Policy Responses to Violence Against Women in Europe. Vilnius: EIGE.
- Kapoor, R. (2022) “Gender Sensitization in Indian Law Enforcement: Assessing Institutional Accountability,”Indian Journal of Law and Society, 13(1), pp. 43–59.
- Nanda, P. (2020) Gender Equality through Education: A Transformative Approach. New Delhi: Routledge India.
Author Name- Riya Saroha, Amity University, Noida
