The “Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023” is going to be “Anay Sanhita” for men.

This bill should have been made considering the changes in society, but it is worse than the current IPC. This bill is something that portrays men as a reason and tries hard to punish men for every reason at every level. The Bill has also ignored the various guidelines issued by the Apex Court from time to time. The bill seems to have been made on the assumption that all women are “saints” while men are “born criminals”. It even do not talk about safeguarding our sons.

The Chapter V of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita bill is a violation of the Constitution Article 14 and 21, the life and liberty of the men would be in the hands of the women in their lives or near them.”

Kumar S Ratan

We see this bill as a new beginning of slavery of men who have been a victim of social norms for 1000s years.

It has missed an important aspect of parenting the child life when parents are in dispute. A child who will keep growing and surprisingly it has not given importance in the great bill of India.

Another important aspect which the government has missed is “Police reform”, and without it whatever the bill comes will harm the society at large. This may result in a society of fearful people. This bill is trying to develop a society of its own kind and there will be no other society to follow.

The Bill even not considers the men’s suicide due to gender laws or dispute with women. More than 60 percent suicide in men is due to family dispute and one sided gender biased law. Refer the NCRB suicide report, it clearly states that suicide in men is more than twice as compared to women.

There are many common acts/conduct that can happen to/against men such as, act of publishing (clause 72) or act of outraging modesty (Clause 73) or act of “Sexual favours or sexual favours” (Clause 74) or act of disrobing or compelling to be naked (clause 75) or act of capturing the image of a woman engaging in a private act (Clause 76) or indecent gesture intended to insult modesty (Clause 78) or marry any against will (Clause 85), but the draft bill criminalizes only men assuming that women can’t make such acts against men.

The Clause 69 “sex on the pretext of marriage”, it denies the occurrence of situation from both the side while there are many reported such incident that woman has denies marrying men after the promise. At present, the apex court considers the change of circumstances in such cases, but after bringing the Act, the accused person is left with the option of serving a jail sentence.

If we specifically talk about “Clause 79 – Dowry death”, it will be an injustice if the provision of sending the whole family to jail on mere claim of in-laws of dowry demand? On the other hand, if the husband dies, the wife is not held responsible.

We see that “Clause 80 – Cohabitation caused by man deceitfully inducing belief of lawful marriage”, this clause appears to be a mere fiction. Every person who born in the culture and civilization knows the basics of rituals in marriage & death. Even if marriage is not lawful then this is the court who will decide, not the police. Even clause 82 (going to be married dishonestly) applies to both the genders.

When we talk about sexual act with children, then I see discrimination with male child which is a violation of rights of the child. Clause 65 has a provision for “imprisonment for the life” but Clause 94 has maximum imprisonment of ten years. It is also confusing whether both the sections can be applicable at the same time.

If I look at “Clause 84 – Cruelty to wife”, however NCRB has less analysis of the issue but whatever the data it provides, states that the law is widely misused and also that husbands are also victims of wife, even Apex court has observed it many times. But the provision in the bill only criminalizes men.

When I see at the clause related to committing rape, it only considers women as victim. We should not forget that society and its norms are changing and adopting the western culture, and in the changing culture women are not less than men. The crime against men is growing rapidly, even women are committing rape with men but ignored in the bill.

The bill even does not provide protection to men if a girl denies from her verbal consent of the sexual intercourse as in Clause 63(vii). The Bill does not protect men from being falsely accused by women.

The bill does not have any provisions to protect men from the false accusations and from the one-sided gender biased laws. Surprisingly, IPC section 211 like sections has not given any space in the new Bill and also that it has not strengthen the IPC Sec 180 or 195 similar clauses.

The bill officially stamps men as the IGNORANT section of the society.

We urge the lawmakers to look our concern and request to amend the draft to make it gender neutral.

Our social media post :

In the case, where respondent wife alleged that her husband and other family members harassed her for dowry, other side the husband argued that his wife repeatedly demanding separate residence after a month of the marriage.

Wife also asked her husband to fulfil her monetary demand, then only she will divorce.

“That I have objection regarding divorce in this case as because either he come to Dibrugarh to live with me or otherwise fulfil my demand i.e. monetary demand, only then I will divorce him.”

The bench also observed and recorded in the order;

“Under the custom of Hindu Marriage, a lady who has entered into marriage according to Hindu rituals and customs, and which has not been denied by the respondent in her evidence, her refusal to wear ‘sakha and sindoor’ will project her to be unmarried and/or signify her refusal to accept the marriage with the appellant. Such categorical stand of the respondent points to the clear intention of the respondent that she is unwilling to continue her conjugal life with the appellant. Under such circumstances compelling the appellant husband to continue to be in matrimony with the respondent wife may be construed to be harassment inflicted by the respondent upon the appellant and his family members.”

The bench reffering the “Rani Narasimha Sastri vs. Rani Suneela Rani” judgement, which clarified cruelty.

“It is true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband.”

The bench also observed from the lower court proceedings, that the respondent wife was preventing husband his legal duty to maintain aged parents.

“during the evidence that the respondent compelled and prevented the appellant from performing his statutory duties towards his aged mother under the provisions of the 2007 Act. Such evidence is sufficient to be construed as an act of cruelty as the non-compliance/non-adherence to the provisions of the 2007 Act has criminal consequences leading to punishment or imprisonment as well as fine.”

Download the order from the below link.

Phogat called the market secretary Sultan Singh in private and then accused him of using inappropriate language for her. So if this was public visit in the market, why you took him in private. The important thing is that Singh was very cooperative and polite all the time and even then when you were beating him, why did he suddenly loose the tempo in your private discussion.

After looking at the entire scenarios and link every aspect, it appears that you went there to satisfy you personal reasons. It was more influenced by your personal reasons while you fraudulently projected your visit an official one.

How can you thrashed any citizen just for your personal reason, who is officially deployed and working honestly. Even you misused the process of law which has essentially made to protect women. Madam you was there with 2-3 four wheeler with more than 8-10 young guys, and you stating it was a official visit.

Men Helpline condemned any kind of shame and harassment with men, just to satisfy their personal vendetta. This is again a human rights violation that, she publicly shamed Mr Singh for the crime he never did.

We being a mens rights organisation, demand Hisar police to arrest Sonali Phogat for thrashing, abusing, stopping a public servant to work, misusing the process of law and institution of criminal proceeding by falsely accusing a person.

We request BJP Haryana wing to suspend her for lifetime from party for the above said conduct. That she was a TikTok star and she made the life of Mr Singh a TicTok, who was forced to feel ashamed for the act he did not committed. He has been shamed in public just because he is a man and Phogat successfully able to shame him because she is a woman.

Attached here Twitter link for reference.

Friday, Sonali Phogat visited Hisar market concerning the farmers grievances but the way she tried to politicise her visit is Not commendable. Men Helpline condemned such behaviour of Sonali Phogat for misusing the process of law to harass a man.

Phogat called the market secretary Sultan Singh in private and then accused him of using inappropriate language for her. So if this was public visit in the market, why you took him in private. The important thing is that Singh was very cooperative and polite all the time and even then when you were beating him, why did he suddenly loose the tempo in your private discussion.

After looking at the entire scenarios and link every aspect, it appears that you went there to satisfy you personal reasons. It was more influenced by your personal reasons while you fraudulently projected your visit an official one.

How can you thrashed any citizen just for your personal reason, who is officially deployed and working honestly. Even you misused the process of law which has essentially made to protect women. Madam you was there with 2-3 four wheeler with more than 8-10 young guys, and you stating it was a official visit.

Men Helpline condemned any kind of shame and harassment with men, just to satisfy their personal vendetta. This is again a human rights violation that, she publicly shamed Mr Singh for the crime he never did.

We being a mens rights organisation, demand Hisar police to arrest Sonali Phogat for thrashing, abusing, stopping a public servant to work, misusing the process of law and institution of criminal proceeding by falsely accusing a person.

We request BJP Haryana wing to suspend her for lifetime from party for the above said conduct. That she was a TikTok star and she made the life of Mr Singh a TicTok, who was forced to feel ashamed for the act he did not committed. He has been shamed in public just because he is a man and Phogat successfully able to shame him because she is a woman.

Attached here Twitter link for reference.