A recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was submitted in 16 December 2024, proposing legislation that will outright forbid online pornography and mandate chemical castration as a form of punishment for rape and sexual assault. Supreme Court ordered the government to submit its view on using chemical castration as a sex offender punishment.
This blog explores both historical views about castration while detailing how it disrupts personal dignity and constitutional principles and the associated modern challenges. Additionally, it explores how societies view chemical castration alongside global rules and specific countries that endorse this punishment and studies their challenges and key human rights issues with possible remedies and analyses whether chemical castration is a workable solution or not?
Understanding Chemical Castration as a Punitive Measure
Physical castration, which involves surgically removing the testicles, and chemical castration, which employs drugs that reduce testosterone levels to reduce sexual desire and performance, are the two methods employed. Many countries as that of Russia and Ukraine, Indonesia, some States of the United States, and a host of other Nations now use it as a punishment but still it is under debate at international levels whether is valid or not.
Castration was once used for purposes such as torture, religious purposes, or the manufacturing of eunuch slaves, but in today’s time it is used to draw a thin line between justice and cruelty. There have been conflicting scientific studies regarding the usefulness of castration in either preventing or punishing sexual misconduct. Some view castration as a basic answer to sexual violence problems, ignoring the fact that these crimes are influenced by many social and mental health factors beyond sexual desire.
Castration would not eliminate the basis of the offender’s wrath or deviant attitude; but only an instrument of expression. It affects a person’s ability to reproduce and procreate, which is fundamental to the survival of the human race and as a result, it raises significant ethical and human rights concerns as the practice is incompatible with constitutional provisions and poses a risk of bioethical and medical overreach.
Incompatibility with Constitutional Provisions
The imposition of chemical castration as a sentence for offenders under “B.N.S Section 65 for wrongdoers” may raise wider social and legal issues that run contrary to the basic constitutional framework, and the Indian legal framework recognizes prisoners’ rights, as held in A.P v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and Ors, wherein it was held that prisoners retain all the fundamental rights as enjoyed by the ordinary citizens unless restricted by constitution mandates.
This also restricts the “individual’ right to freely express themselves” physically and mentally, as guaranteed under “Article 19(1)(a)“. It may damage the psychical working ability that could be reflected in their capacity to work in professions demanding physical or mental stability as the psychological and physical stress triggered by hormonal imbalance undergone during chemical castration would make the individual inefficient and less involved at work.
With its serious side effects, it fails to rehabilitate offenders, which violates the basic purposes of core penal laws under common law principles.
Article 21 provides the right to life and personal liberty encircling within it bodily integrity, mental autonomy, and rights to decisions over one’s body. Castration will result in tremendous long-term results such as depression, anemia, and lowering of bone density and most urgently the right to procreate. These effects negatively impact rational thought and self-control, both crucial for rationally exercising constitutionally protected fundamental rights.
Under the proportionality test laid down in “K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India”, castration fails to meet the proportionality measures by violating necessity and object, as in the case of the former condition, alternative rehabilitative methods and therapeutic remedies exist, which are less intrusive and more effective. Similarly, the object’s condition necessitates a logical relationship between actions and the desired outcome; castration, which only stifles sexual desire, ignores the long-term social objective of lowering crime recurrence through reformation, severing the logical connection between punishment and public safety.
Justice Chelameshwar in the same case emphasized upon “decisional Autonomy” of an individual, which includes the right to refuse. The involuntary nature of any test on prisoners is restricted by the Supreme Court in “Selvi v. State of Karnataka”, upholding the right to life and dignity which further reinforced the principle that bodily autonomy cannot be compromised under compulsion.
A person is influenced by the social and cultural context in which he lives, castration erodes power relations. It undercuts the part played by societal causes and indirect offenders. This blame strategy just provides victims with a false sense of fulfilment and gives society a false sense of security, ignoring the underlying causes of these atrocities. Additionally, the coercive conditions under which a prisoner’s permission is obtained pose significant challenges, as criminals are given the option to choose between imprisonment and castration is inherently restrictive.
Violation of International Obligation and Ethical norms
According to human rights norms, the punishment of castration violates several international declarations and covenants and causes prisoners to endure varying degrees of extreme physical and psychological suffering. It also violates the fundamental moral and human dignity principles recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which acknowledges the “Right to Life and Dignity of an Individual.” In particular, “Article 5 of the UDHR” states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment”.
Similarly in the way, “Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights
(ICCPR)” elaborates on an extensive prohibition of “Inhumane and Degrading Punishments”, Castration goes against these Principles by taking away an Individual’ Autonomy and having serious side effects that last a lifetime in severe cases. There are apparent ethical and practical drawbacks to incarceration as an alternative as temporarily it may quell sexual urges, but also leaves out the psychological and behavioural elements that lead to sexual offences, and this narrowed procedure fails to address the structural causes of such crimes.
The “Twelve Human Rights Components” by the “Internationally Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF) in 1996”, incorporated sexual and reproductive health which highlighted sexual rights to get protection from all forms of violence and threats as these are considered inseparable from human dignity.
Professor John Stinneford argued, “It is a cruel and unusual punishment because it exerts control over the mind of sex offenders to render them incapable of sexual desire and subject them to physical change caused by the human hormones used.” In chemical castration stripping individuals of their procreative rights is seen as transgressing on the personal liberty of an individual and restricting a person’s desire, which enters into a dimension of mind, therefore, it works as a manipulation of mental state and this interference undermines the natural autonomy of individuals and fundamentally conflicts with the principles of human rights and infringes on personal liberty.
Moreover, in the countries that have implemented chemical castration as a punishment, its use has been limited due to underlying defects and questionable effectiveness as numerous cases have shown that even after undergoing chemical castration, offenders have committed crimes of similar intensity. While castration offers a swift punitive measure, it fails to cover other broader principles of justice and rehabilitation.
Way Forward: A Balanced Approach to Justice
Sexual violence cannot be attributed to a single cause. There is a need for an effective punishment that covers all the dimensions before imposing it on prisoners and also targeting sexual crimes from the root. Castration may offer a temporary solution or give satisfaction to victims by giving a sense of justice but to address the deeper roots of sexual violence a more comprehensive solution is required, that not only punishes but prevents the crime by addressing societal and psycho-behavioural causes behind these crimes.
Therefore, psycho-behavioural therapy and strengthening the legal and judicial measures already in place to ensure effective implementation can provide a more effective response to this deeply rooted social problem. Castration demands more evaluation and ratification before it is considered a viable measure for punishment.
Conclusion
The applicability of castration whether in chemical form or permanent surgical removal represents a narrow method of punitive punishment for prisoners. It relies on the assumption that offenders are inherently violent by birth and suggests that biological factors alone drive them to commit such crimes.
This perspective disregards the fallacy of a person being nurtured through societal principles which may also turn him violent. Many of these crimes are not solely driven to satisfy sexual fantasies but are often fuelled by rage and to showcase the domination of patriarchy over victims. Crime should be treated as a last mistake however, in this procedure, evidence of re-offence following castration highlights its ineffectiveness and limitation of voluntary consent which proves less deterrent punishment compared to imprisonment or the death penalty.
Author: Nikesh Dubey, Semester 3rd, BA.LL.B.(Hons.), Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
