The recent suicide of Bengaluru-based software engineer Atul Subhash has captured nationwide attention, with significant updates shedding light on the harrowing circumstances that led to his demise. In his 24-page note and 90-minute video, Atul accused his wife and her family of harassment, citing financial and emotional strain stemming from their demands and restricted access to his child. As investigations unfold, this case has reignited the age-old debate surrounding gender-centric laws in India.

The updates in Atul's case including arrests of the accused, and public outcry over perceived biases highlight the complexities within the existing legal system. This incident raises pressing questions about whether current laws effectively balance justice for both genders or inadvertently perpetuate new inequities.

In this article, we examine the nuances of gender-centric laws, using Atul Subhash's case as a focal point to explore their broader implications. We aim to address the need for equitable reforms while emphasizing the importance of safeguarding all individuals from exploitation, regardless of gender.

Gender bias through the lens of law

Gender bias in law refers to the unequal treatment or disproportionate impact of legal provisions on individuals based solely on their gender. It occurs when laws, policies, or judicial practices favour one gender while inadvertently marginalizing or disadvantaging the other. Although many laws are created to protect vulnerable groups, a lack of balanced implementation or misuse of such provisions can lead to systemic inequalities.

Gender bias in the legal system manifests in various forms, from assumptions about gender roles to the differential treatment of individuals in legal disputes. It highlights the need for a nuanced approach to legislation that protects vulnerable individuals while ensuring fairness and equity for all parties involved.

Key Provisions and Alleged Biases:

1. Section 375 IPC (Rape):
   The current definition of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is framed in a way that primarily considers a man as the perpetrator and a woman as the victim. The issue of gender-neutral rape laws gained attention during the passage of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013. While the intent was to ensure equality by holding both genders accountable as perpetrators, this change sparked concerns regarding double victimization of women.
   
   Critics argued that the potential for counter-complaints could pressure women to withdraw their cases, thereby compromising justice. Although marginalized communities may face greater harm when considering gender-neutrality of perpetrators, gender-neutral language for victims—whether female, male, or transgender—can offer more inclusive protections.
    
2. Section 498A IPC (Cruelty towards a woman by her husband or his family):
   Over the years, Section 498A has gained notoriety as one of the most abused laws in Indian jurisprudence. With the rise in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Section 498A, being a cognizable and non-bailable offense, has been frequently used as a weapon by disgruntled wives rather than as a shield for protection. In cases such as Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar and Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand, courts emphasized the tendency to implicate the husband's relatives without sufficient evidence, leading to unnecessary trials and damaging the social fabric of families.
   
   The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India also highlighted the rampant misuse of Section 498A, describing it as a form of "legal terrorism." While the court upheld its constitutionality, it emphasized the need for strict vigilance by police and investigating agencies to prevent innocent persons from being dragged into false accusations.
    
3. Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAM Act):
   Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act mandates that a Hindu wife has the right to financial support from her husband throughout her life, irrespective of the duration of the marriage. However, the provision lacks clarity regarding the quantum and conditions of maintenance, leaving significant room for misuse. Over time, this has led to men being subjected to long-term financial obligations under vague and ambiguous terms, contributing to financial hardships. Without precise guidelines, this section has been misused by some to demand excessive or indefinite maintenance, leading to perceived gender bias and inequities.

Statistical Analysis of Misuse of Gender-Specific Laws

1. Section 498A IPC (Cruelty by Husband and Relatives)
   • In 2020, a total of 111,549 cases were registered under Section 498A IPC.
   • 5,520 cases were closed by police citing false or baseless allegations, accounting for 14.4% of the total cases.
   • Overall, 16,151 cases were closed for reasons such as false claims, mistaken facts, or civil disputes.
   • A total of 120,306 arrests were made under Section 498A, with 96,497 men and 23,809 women arrested.
   • Of the cases that went to trial:
     • 18,967 cases were tried.
     • 14,340 acquittals and 3,425 convictions were reported, leading to a conviction rate of only 27.8%.
   • By the end of 2020, 651,404 cases were pending trial, with a pendency rate of 96.2%.
      
2. Section 376 IPC (Rape)
   • In 2020, 10,751 rape cases were registered under the pretext of marriage or by a friend or live-in partner, constituting 38% of total rape cases.
   • In 2019, this figure was 16,311 out of 32,033 cases (51%), and in 2018, 12,568 out of 33,356 cases (37.6%).
   • The NCRB data reveals:
     • 95.6% of rape cases in India involve offenders known to the victim.
     • Only 4.4% involve strangers.
   • These statistics highlight a significant misuse of rape allegations under the guise of personal relationships, leading to wrongful accusations.
      
3. Section 354 IPC (Assault with Intent to Outrage Modesty)
   • In 2020, 85,392 cases were registered under Section 354 IPC.
   • 5,821 cases were closed by police due to false or unsubstantiated claims, accounting for 14.5% of the total cases.
   • 89,498 men and 5,329 women were arrested under this section, amounting to a total of 94,827 arrests.

Out of the 20,182 cases that went to trial, 13,649 cases resulted in acquittals, while 5,629 cases led to convictions, yielding a conviction rate of 28%.

These statistics reveal the alarming rates of misuse and wrongful implications under gender-specific laws, particularly those targeting men, highlighting a need for legal reforms to prevent abuse and ensure justice.

Impact of Gender Biases of Law on Men

The misuse of laws like Section 498A IPC (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives), Section 376 IPC (Rape), and Section 354 IPC (Assault with Intent to Outrage Modesty of a Woman) has profound and often damaging consequences for men. These laws were originally enacted to protect women from genuine instances of abuse and harassment, but when misused, they can lead to severe injustices, deeply affecting men in various aspects of their lives.

• Emotional and Psychological Distress Men falsely accused under these provisions often experience intense emotional turmoil, including anxiety, depression, and extreme psychological distress. The stigma attached to such accusations, even when they are later proven false, often leads to feelings of hopelessness and despair. The prolonged uncertainty and fear of being wrongfully convicted exacerbate mental health issues and, in some tragic instances, can contribute to suicidal tendencies. The emotional toll is particularly severe as it can affect the accused's overall well-being, their sense of self-worth, and their ability to function normally in daily life.
   
• Damage to Reputation Accusations under these laws, even if unproven or eventually dismissed, can have a long-lasting impact on a man's reputation. In a society that often presumes guilt in high-profile cases, the accused may be subjected to public scrutiny, social stigma, and ridicule. Loss of credibility can extend to both personal and professional spheres, affecting relationships, career prospects, and standing within the community. The mere mention of such accusations can be enough to destroy trust, leading to social ostracization and difficulties in maintaining personal and professional relationships.
   
• Financial Burden The financial implications of false accusations under these laws can be severe. Legal defense, court fees, and the cost of prolonged legal battles can drain a man's financial resources. In cases under Section 498A, men are often required to pay interim maintenance or alimony even before guilt is established, leading to an unfair financial burden. The loss of employment, business opportunities, or reduced earning capacity due to legal entanglements only exacerbates the financial strain.
   
• Family and Social Disruption False accusations have a devastating impact on family life. Men who are falsely accused often face alienation from their children, strained relationships with family members, and the breakdown of marriages. Accusations against husbands or in-laws can lead to emotional and psychological stress for elderly parents, who may also face social stigma and humiliation. The disruption caused by such cases can have long-term consequences, leaving families broken and fractured.
   
• Legal Complications Men accused under these laws often find themselves entangled in lengthy legal proceedings, creating an enduring sense of vulnerability and a complex web of legal challenges and arduous legal battles that can drag on for years. The delays in the judicial process exacerbate the suffering of the accused, leaving them in a state of uncertainty and prolonged distress. These cases often involve invasive investigations, frequent court appearances, and the risk of wrongful convictions, contributing to a loss of faith in the justice system. The lack of a swift resolution adds to the psychological and emotional burdens, preventing men from moving on with their lives.

Judicial Observations on Gender Bias:

In the case of Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda, the Supreme Court made crucial observations regarding the misuse of gender-specific provisions like Section 498A IPC (cruelty), Section 376 IPC (rape), Section 377 IPC (unnatural sex), and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation). These provisions, originally enacted to protect women from abuse, have increasingly been exploited, particularly in matrimonial disputes, as a means to exert undue pressure on husbands. The Court cautioned that such misuse leads to significant consequences, not only for the accused but also for the judicial process and societal trust in the legal system.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh observed:
"The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for." The Court emphasized that the invocation of these provisions as a "combined package" in matrimonial disputes has been condemned by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions.

The Rinku Baheti case highlights how these laws, while crucial in addressing genuine cases of violence and abuse, are often misused to exert undue pressure on husbands, leading to unnecessary legal battles and reputational harm. The Supreme Court reiterated the need for judicial restraint, stressing that these provisions should not be invoked lightly or inappropriately, as they can have far-reaching consequences for both parties involved.

This judgment adds to the growing body of case law addressing the misuse of gender-specific laws, emphasizing the need to uphold fairness and prevent their exploitation for personal or vindictive purposes. Men who are falsely implicated under these provisions often face prolonged legal battles that can drain their financial resources and emotional well-being. Legal proceedings under laws like Section 498A and 376 are notoriously lengthy and expensive, often resulting in job losses, financial instability, and significant emotional distress.

The stigma associated with such accusations, even when later proven false, can cause irreparable reputational damage, affecting career prospects, personal relationships, and social standing. Accusations of rape or domestic violence, even if unsubstantiated, carry immense social consequences that are difficult to overcome, leaving many men in a state of fear, anxiety, and depression.

Furthermore, these provisions contribute to family disruption, particularly when custody battles arise. Men often face a disadvantage in custody disputes, where prevailing societal norms tend to favor women as primary caregivers, despite the absence of substantial evidence of wrongdoing. This imbalance in legal protection leads to a lack of parity, as men find it difficult to seek justice in cases of false accusations. The Supreme Court, in the Rinku Baheti case, highlighted that while these laws were designed to empower women, their misuse has led to injustice, creating a need for judicial restraint and a more equitable application of the law.

Suggestions for Reform
To address the misuse and inequities associated with gender-specific laws like Section 498A IPC, Section 376 IPC, Section 377 IPC, and Section 506 IPC, several key reforms are needed to ensure justice, fairness, and balance for both men and women.

• Stricter Guidelines and Threshold for Complaints One of the primary concerns is the misuse of these provisions due to their broad and often vague scope. Establishing stricter guidelines and a higher threshold for filing complaints could prevent frivolous and exaggerated allegations. Laws should be applied only when there is substantial evidence of genuine abuse, reducing the chances of innocent individuals being implicated.
   
• Presumption of Innocence and Judicial Restraint The legal system should emphasize the presumption of innocence for the accused until proven guilty. Courts should adopt a more cautious approach, ensuring that convictions are not based solely on weak or generalized allegations. Judicial restraint is essential to avoid hasty conclusions, especially in matrimonial disputes where the accused often faces undue hardship due to false accusations.
   
• Equal Protection and Legal Recourse for Both Genders Gender-neutral reforms are necessary to ensure that both men and women have equal legal protections. Laws should be balanced, ensuring that neither gender is disproportionately disadvantaged. For instance, if a man is a victim of domestic violence or other forms of abuse, they should have access to similar protections as women.
   
• Mandatory Mediation and Counseling in Matrimonial Disputes Matrimonial disputes often escalate due to a lack of intervention and counseling. Mandatory mediation and counseling before initiating legal proceedings could help resolve conflicts amicably, reducing the reliance on criminal law as a tool to settle disputes. This would ensure that genuine cases are identified while preventing misuse for personal vendettas.
   
• Re-evaluation of Maintenance Laws Maintenance laws have often been criticized for placing an undue financial burden on the accused, particularly when the spouse is financially independent or self-sufficient. Reforms in these laws could ensure a more equitable approach, considering both parties' financial status to prevent misuse and ensure fairness.
   
• Increased Awareness and Education Raising awareness about the misuse of these laws, both among the public and the judiciary, can help ensure their proper application. Legal education programs for judges, lawyers, and the public can contribute to a better understanding of the intent behind such provisions and ensure they are used appropriately and fairly.
   
• Strengthening the Role of Specialized Courts Establishing specialized courts to handle matrimonial and family disputes can ensure quicker, more effective adjudication. These courts can focus on reducing delays and ensuring justice without compromising fairness, while also monitoring the misuse of provisions more efficiently.

By implementing these reforms, the legal system can better ensure justice and fairness for all, protecting genuine victims while preventing the misuse of laws meant for their protection.

Conclusion
Atul Subhash's case has brought to the forefront the critical issues surrounding the misuse and inequities associated with gender-centric laws in India. His tragic demise has served as a grim reflection of the often devastating consequences that can arise from the misuse of legal provisions designed to protect individuals from harm. The emotional, financial, and reputational struggles faced by Atul, as well as his harrowing accusations against his wife and her family, underscore the broader implications of gender-specific laws and their unintended impact on individuals, irrespective of gender.

Atul's case is a stark reminder that while these legal provisions—such as Section 498A IPC (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives), Section 376 IPC (Rape), and Section 354 IPC (Assault with Intent to Outrage Modesty)—were initially enacted to address genuine instances of abuse, they have increasingly become tools of misuse, often leading to severe injustices, particularly for men. These laws, while rooted in good intentions, have not always been applied fairly, resulting in wrongful accusations that have profound and long-lasting consequences for the accused.

The misuse of laws like Section 498A has been widely documented, with studies revealing that a significant proportion of such cases are later dismissed due to the lack of substantial evidence. In 2020 alone, over 14.4% of the cases filed under Section 498A IPC were closed due to false or baseless allegations. The high conviction rate for false cases not only drains the resources of the legal system but also inflicts emotional trauma and financial hardships on innocent individuals.

Similarly, Section 376 IPC, aimed at combating rape and sexual assault, has been misused in many cases, especially in personal relationships. The NCRB data reveals that a significant percentage of rape cases involve offenders known to the victim, rather than strangers. In such instances, allegations under Section 376 IPC can often be leveraged for personal vendettas or disputes, resulting in wrongful accusations.

The emotional and psychological toll on men accused under these provisions is often profound and long-lasting. The stigma attached to false accusations, even when later proven to be false, leads to feelings of anxiety, depression, and social ostracization. Atul's tragic end highlights how the relentless burden of legal battles, coupled with the societal stigma, can drive individuals to despair.

Atul's case also calls for judicial restraint and a more cautious approach from courts, especially in matrimonial disputes. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for stricter guidelines and a higher threshold for filing complaints, as well as the presumption of innocence for the accused until proven guilty. However, these principles are often overlooked in practice, particularly when it comes to gender-specific laws. Atul's case, like other judicial precedents, demonstrates that there is a pressing need for reforms that ensure these provisions are applied with fairness, thereby preventing their misuse.

In conclusion, Atul Subhash's case serves as a critical example of how gender-centric laws, while designed to protect, can have unintended and far-reaching consequences. His story emphasizes the urgent need for reforms aimed at ensuring justice, fairness, and the equitable application of laws for all genders. Striking a balance between protecting genuine victims while safeguarding the rights of the accused is essential to prevent further cases like Atul's, where innocent individuals are unjustly subjected to severe legal and social consequences.