Gender Justice and the Criminal Justice System: Evaluating Rape Law Reforms Post-2013[1]

Abstract

The 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case acted as a seismic moment in India’s legal and social history, prompting widespread outrage and catalysing significant amendments to rape laws through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. This research paper critically evaluates the effectiveness of these post-2013 reforms in delivering gender justice through the criminal justice system. While the amendments expanded the definition of rape, introduced new sexual offences, and strengthened procedural safeguards for victims, systemic issues—such as underreporting, victim-blaming, low conviction rates, and patriarchal biases within law enforcement—continue to hinder meaningful justice. This paper analyses judicial trends, implementation gaps, and socio cultural barriers to assess whether the reforms have translated into substantive justice for survivors. Through doctrinal and empirical review, the paper argues that while the legal framework has evolved, the lived realities of survivors remain fraught with challenges, necessitating deeper structural reforms beyond penal changes.

Keywords

Gender justice, rape law reforms, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, sexual violence, victim rights, criminal justice system, patriarchy, legal reform, women’s rights, India

Literature Review

The issue of sexual violence and the legal mechanisms to address it has been the focus of extensive academic, judicial, and policy-oriented inquiry, particularly following the brutal Delhi gang rape incident in 2012. This literature review highlights the key contributions of scholars, committees, and institutions in understanding the intersection of gender justice and criminal law reforms.

1. Justice Verma Committee Report (2013)

The Justice Verma Committee Report is a foundational document in post-2012 legal reform. It made comprehensive recommendations, including expanding the definition of rape, criminalising voyeurism and stalking, recognising marital rape, and improving police accountability.[2] Although many of its suggestions were incorporated into the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, several—such as criminalising marital rape and reviewing AFSPA provisions—were excluded.

2. Academic Analyses of the 2013 Reforms

Scholars like Ratna Kapur have critiqued the reforms for being overly punitive without addressing the root causes of gender-based violence, such as social conditioning and systemic patriarchy.[3] Similarly, Jhuma Sen argues that the reforms failed to deconstruct power structures that normalise sexual violence, and instead focused on retributive justice.[4]The critique lies in the state’s emphasis on increasing punishments rather than enabling structural change in policing and justice delivery.

3. Feminist Legal Theory Perspectives

Feminist legal scholars such as Nivedita Menon and Flavia Agnes highlight how gender justice is often narrowly defined within the criminal law lens, overlooking the lived experiences of survivors.[5] They contend that the legal framework still retains vestiges of moral policing and victim-blaming, as seen in how courts scrutinise the survivor’s character and conduct during trials.

4. Empirical Data and Reports

Reports by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and organisations such as the Centre for Social Research indicate that while the number of reported rape cases increased post-2013, conviction rates have remained stagnant or declined.[6] This raises concerns about effective implementation. Studies also highlight that survivors often withdraw complaints due to threats, societal pressure, or lack of institutional support.

5. Judicial Response and Interpretation

Post-2013, courts have delivered landmark rulings that have shaped gender justice. In State of Karnataka v Krishnappa, the Court held that modesty and consent must be interpreted from the woman’s perspective. However, inconsistent jurisprudence and patriarchal reasoning persist, especially in lower courts, reflecting a gap between law and justice.

6. Limitations in Procedural Safeguards

Despite procedural reforms—such as in-camera trials, use of female officers, and victim compensation schemes—scholars like Aparna Chandra argue that these mechanisms are inconsistently applied and often undermined by institutional apathy.

Research Methodology

This research adopts a qualitative and doctrinal methodology supplemented with empirical data analysis to critically evaluate the rape law reforms introduced in India post-2013. The methodology is structured to assess the text of the law, its judicial interpretation, and its practical enforcement, especially in the context of gender justice.

1. Doctrinal Legal Research

Doctrinal research forms the backbone of this study. It involves critical analysis of:

• Primary legal materials, such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, and constitutional provisions related to gender equality;
• Landmark judicial decisions, such as Shreya Singhal v Union of India, Tukaram v State of Maharashtra (Mathura case), and post-2013 rape cases that interpret the amended provisions;
• Reports of law commissions and committees (e.g., the Justice Verma Committee Report).

This approach helps understand how the legal framework on sexual violence has evolved and whether it has aligned with constitutional promises of equality and dignity.

2. Empirical and Statistical Review

This research integrates data from sources such as:

• National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics (2013–2023) on rape reporting, pendency of cases, and conviction rates;
• Empirical studies and reports from NGOs and women’s rights organisations such as the Centre for Social Research, Amnesty India, and Human Rights Watch.

These data points are used to examine trends in reporting and prosecution post-reforms and to assess the gap between law in books and law in action.

3. Feminist Legal Perspective

The paper employs a feminist legal theoretical lens to assess whether the reforms have been transformative or merely symbolic. This includes analysis of:

• The gendered impact of legal provisions;
• How power relations, victimhood, and agency are constructed within the criminal justice system;
• The extent to which rape law reform addresses or reproduces patriarchy.

4. Comparative Legal Analysis

To understand best practices, the paper briefly compares India’s legal response with:

• The UK’s Sexual Offences Act, 2003;
• Canada’s criminal justice approach to sexual assault;
• UN Women’s guidance on survivor-centred justice systems.

This helps evaluate the scope for further reform in the Indian legal system.

5. Limitations of the Study

• The study is limited to post-2013 reforms and does not delve into broader gender crimes like domestic violence or workplace harassment.
• Field-based interviews of survivors or trial court proceedings are not included due to access and ethical considerations.
• While using secondary empirical data, the reliability is subject to the quality and transparency of governmental records.

Hypothesis

This research is guided by the following central hypothesis:

“The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, while significant in scope, has not fully achieved gender justice in rape jurisprudence due to persistent implementation gaps, patriarchal institutional attitudes, and inadequate survivor support mechanisms within the Indian criminal justice system.”

Supporting Assumptions:

1. Legal reforms alone are insufficient to combat gender-based violence without systemic change in police, judiciary, and social attitudes.
2. Victim-centric justice is often compromised due to procedural lapses, poor law enforcement training, and societal stigmas.
3. Survivors’ access to justice continues to be hindered by the absence of timely investigations, hostile cross-examinations, and re-traumatisation during trials.
4. The deterrence objective of the 2013 reforms is undermined by low conviction rates and procedural delays.

Introduction

Gender justice, in its truest sense, embodies the principle of equality and dignity for all genders, particularly in how legal systems respond to violations of bodily autonomy. In India, the criminal justice system has long struggled to deliver justice to survivors of sexual violence, where patriarchal norms, institutional apathy, and procedural hurdles often override statutory protections. The 2012 Delhi gang rape incident catalysed a watershed moment in India’s legal history, triggering unprecedented public outrage and demands for reform. This led to the enactment of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which aimed to overhaul existing rape laws, broaden definitions, introduce new offences, and improve procedural safeguards for victims.[7]

While these reforms were progressive in text, the substance and implementation of gender justice remain questionable. The post-2013 legal architecture—though reflective of a more inclusive understanding of sexual violence—continues to fall short when tested in practice. This is evident from persistently low conviction rates, poor police responsiveness, and societal stigma that silences victims rather than empowering them. Moreover, key recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee, such as criminalising marital rape and ensuring police accountability, were conspicuously excluded from the final legislation.[8]

The relationship between criminal law and gender justice must be viewed not merely in terms of penal outcomes, but through a transformative lens that challenges power hierarchies, reorients institutional behaviour, and restores agency to survivors.[9] Feminist legal scholars argue that legal reforms often remain tokenistic unless embedded within broader systemic change that redefines both legal consciousness and social morality.

This paper seeks to critically evaluate whether the 2013 rape law reforms have substantively advanced gender justice or merely represent a symbolic response to a crisis. By analysing statutory changes, judicial responses, empirical data, and feminist critiques, the study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of how far India’s criminal justice system has evolved in delivering justice to survivors of rape.

1. Evolution of Rape Laws in India: Pre-2013 Landscape

The trajectory of rape law in India has historically reflected the colonial legacy of criminal jurisprudence and the patriarchal construction of female sexuality. Prior to the 2013 amendments, the legal definition of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, was narrow and limited primarily to penile-vaginal penetration. The provision failed to account for other forms of sexual assault and excluded instances like marital rape, oral and anal penetration, and penetration using objects—thus offering incomplete protection to survivors.

A major criticism of the pre-2013 framework was its inadequate understanding of consent. Courts often interpreted consent through outdated moralistic standards, focusing on the victim’s past sexual history, physical resistance, or emotional comportment.[10] This legal environment not only restricted survivor autonomy but also reinforced secondary victimisation during trials.

The notorious Mathura rape case—Tukaram v State of Maharashtra (1979)—exposed the deep institutional bias wherein the Supreme Court acquitted policemen accused of custodial rape, citing the victim’s lack of visible resistance and “habitual” sexual behaviour.[11] The backlash led to the 1983 amendment, which introduced custodial rape provisions and in-camera trials. However, even these changes were piecemeal and reactive rather than systemic.

The Sakshi v Union of India (2004) case further highlighted the insufficiency of the definition of rape. The Supreme Court, while recognising the need for broader protection, deferred the issue to Parliament, which remained largely inactive until 2012.[12]

Thus, the pre-2013 rape laws were marked by:

• A limited definition of sexual assault;
• Judicial inconsistency and patriarchal interpretation of consent;
• Neglect of survivor-centric procedures, and;
• Minimal deterrence due to lenient sentencing norms and low conviction rates.

It was only after the December 2012 Delhi gang rape, which sparked national outrage and mass protests, that systemic legislative reform became politically unavoidable, culminating in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

2. The 2013 Reforms – Scope and Provisions

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 marked a watershed in India’s legal response to sexual violence. Prompted by the nationwide protests following the 2012 Delhi gang rape, the amendment incorporated key recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee, albeit selectively.[13] The Act expanded the legal definition of rape, introduced new offences, and enhanced procedural protections for survivors—all aimed at ensuring a more comprehensive, victim-centred legal framework.

Expanded Definition of Rape

Section 375 of the IPC was extensively redefined to move beyond the narrow focus on penile-vaginal penetration. The revised provision now includes:

• Penetration of the vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus with any object or any part of the body;
• Oral sex and acts committed under coercion, intoxication, or deceit;
• Acts where consent is obtained by impersonation or fear of death or hurt.

This broader definition reflects a more realistic understanding of sexual violence and aligns Indian law more closely with international human rights standards.

Introduction of New Offences

The 2013 Act also introduced new gender-specific offences to address contemporary forms of violence:

• Section 354A – Sexual harassment (including unwelcome physical contact and sexually coloured remarks);
• Section 354B–D – Assault to disrobe, voyeurism, and stalking;
• Section 326A & B – Acid attacks and attempted acid attacks.

These provisions responded to increasing recognition of non-penetrative but deeply invasive forms of sexual violence, particularly in digital and public spaces.

Procedural and Institutional Safeguards

The amendment introduced significant procedural reforms, such as:

• Mandatory recording of a woman’s statement by a female police officer;
• Provision for in-camera trials and no repeated cross-examinations;
• Introduction of Section 357A of CrPC for victim compensation schemes.[14]

Additionally, police officers refusing to register an FIR under Section 166A IPC can now be penalised, recognising the structural barriers survivors often face at the initial reporting stage.

Increased Punishments and Death Penalty

Punishments for rape were enhanced from a minimum of 7 years to 10 years or life imprisonment, with death penalty introduced in cases resulting in death or a vegetative state. However, this punitive shift has been critiqued by scholars and activists for fostering retributive justice, often to the detriment of survivors’ long-term wellbeing and deterrence efficacy.

Limitations of the Reforms

Despite its progressive elements, the Act excluded several key Justice Verma Committee recommendations, such as:

• Criminalisation of marital rape;
• Review of AFSPA immunity for armed forces personnel;
• Stronger provisions for police accountability and legal education.

Moreover, the law remains gender-specific in its application—recognising only women as victims and men as perpetrators—which excludes transgender and male survivors from legal protection.[15]

3. Implementation Challenges and Ground-Level Realities

While the 2013 amendments to rape law represented a major statutory advance, their implementation on the ground has been marred by persistent institutional shortcomings and social resistance. The gap between de jure law and de facto practice undermines the goals of victim-centric justice and exposes the limitations of legal reform in the absence of systemic change.

a) Police Apathy and Non-Registration of FIRs

Despite provisions penalising police inaction (Section 166A IPC), multiple studies and survivor testimonies highlight widespread reluctance to register First Information Reports (FIRs) in rape cases, particularly in rural and marginalised communities. Police officers often act as moral adjudicators, questioning the victim’s character or suggesting compromise.

Empirical data from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative shows that even after the 2013 reforms, over 33% of sexual assault cases surveyed across states involved delay or refusal in FIR registration.[16] This highlights the endemic lack of sensitivity and accountability within the first point of contact in the justice chain.

b) Judicial Delays and Low Conviction Rates

India’s trial process in rape cases remains notoriously sluggish. NCRB data from 2022 reveals a conviction rate of only 27.2% for rape offences, and pendency in trial courts continues to increase.[17] Factors such as poor quality of investigation, hostile witnesses, and prosecutorial apathy often result in acquittals, even in cases with strong prima facie evidence.

Moreover, judges continue to display moralistic tendencies, sometimes relying on victim behaviour, marital status, or “modesty” to draw legal conclusions. In State v Mahmood Farooqui, the Delhi High Court controversially held that “a feeble no may mean yes,” severely diluting the statutory understanding of consent.

c) Revictimisation During Trial Process

Despite procedural protections under the 2013 reforms, survivors often face secondary victimisation through repeated statements, character assassination during cross-examination, and lack of psychological support. The environment in many Indian trial courts remains intimidating and adversarial, with no consistent access to victim counsellors or legal aid.

In State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh, the Supreme Court warned against giving undue weight to a survivor’s character, yet such biases continue in lower courts. In some cases, medical examinations still refer to the discredited “two-finger test”, despite explicit prohibition.[18]

d) Marginalised Groups and Discriminatory Access to Justice

Dalit, Adivasi, LGBTQ+, and disabled women face multiple layers of discrimination when reporting and prosecuting sexual violence. A study by Human Rights Watch found that rape complaints by Dalit women were more likely to be ignored or undermined, particularly when the accused belonged to dominant castes.[19]

Additionally, India’s rape law does not recognise transgender, intersex, or male survivors, despite the NALSA judgment affirming the right to self-identify gender under Article 21.[20] The lack of gender-neutral provisions reflects a binary and exclusionary understanding of sexual violence.

4. Feminist Critique and the Question of Transformative Justice

Feminist legal scholars have critically engaged with the 2013 reforms, recognising them as a legal victory but simultaneously cautioning against over-reliance on carceral approaches. The focus on punishment and expansion of offences has been criticised for failing to address the structural roots of gender violence and for reinforcing a system that may not always serve survivors’ long-term interests.

a) Carcerality vs Justice

Many feminists argue that the amendments reflect a punitive populism—driven more by public outrage than by a nuanced understanding of justice.[21] The introduction of the death penalty in Section 376A IPC has been widely opposed by women’s rights organisations like the All IndiaDemocratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), which warned that such measures could deter survivors (especially in familial or known-offender cases) from reporting crimes.[22]

Moreover, the focus on stricter sentencing shifts attention away from restorative or survivor-centric justice models, which emphasise healing, agency, and rehabilitation over retribution. Scholars such as Pratiksha Baxi and Ratna Kapur have argued that criminal law, by its very nature, often instrumentalises victims to serve the state’s goals, rather than centring their lived experiences.

b) Consent and Autonomy

Although the 2013 Act redefined consent as “unequivocal voluntary agreement,” judicial interpretation remains inconsistent. Feminist critiques highlight how courts continue to interpret consent through heteronormative and moralistic lenses, undermining the autonomy of adult women.[23] In Mahmood Farooqui (discussed earlier), the Delhi High Court’s reasoning illustrated how even progressive statutory definitions can be hollowed out by patriarchal judicial discretion.

This gap between formal recognition and lived experience indicates that law alone cannot dismantle societal biases. Feminist jurisprudence insists that meaningful gender justice requires transformation of legal institutions, not just legislative reform.

c) Marital Rape and the Limits of Reform

The exclusion of marital rape from the 2013 reforms continues to be a glaring omission. The Justice Verma Committee had unequivocally recommended its criminalisation, recognising that marriage cannot be a defence to sexual violence. However, the government, citing cultural norms and misuse concerns, rejected this recommendation—a move that has been widely condemned by feminist and human rights advocates.

The recent Delhi High Court split verdict in RIT Foundation v Union of India reignited the debate, exposing the judiciary’s divided stance on whether spousal immunity under Section 375 is constitutional. The refusal to criminalise marital rape perpetuates institutionalised impunity and undermines the right to bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

d) Intersectional Feminism and the Limits of the Law

Feminist legal theory also critiques the middle-class, urban, cis-woman subject that rape law implicitly centres. Dalit, Adivasi, queer, and disabled survivors experience sexual violence differently, often navigating multiple axes of oppression.[24] A uniform, carceral model cannot respond to these diverse realities, nor can it substitute for education, gender sensitisation, and redistributive justice.

5. Comparative Jurisprudence and Global Trends

India’s post-2013 rape law reforms, though extensive, must be evaluated against global legal standards and best practices to assess their adequacy in securing gender justice. Comparative analysis reveals that while India has made important strides in redefining sexual violence, it still lags behind in areas such as marital rape criminalisation, gender neutrality, and restorative justice mechanisms.

a) Marital Rape: Global Legal Standards

Over 100 countries have criminalised marital rape, including jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, South Africa, and Nepal.[25] In the landmark UK case R v R (1991), the House of Lords held that marriage does not imply irrevocable consent, striking down the marital rape exemption.

India remains one of the few democracies where marital rape is legally permitted, protected under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. This not only violates the principle of bodily autonomy under Article 21 but also runs contrary to India’s obligations under CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women).[26]

The UN Committee on CEDAW has repeatedly urged India to repeal the marital rape exception, viewing it as a form of discrimination against women and a violation of their right to equality and freedom from torture.[27]

b) Gender-Neutral and Inclusive Laws

Many countries, including Australia and Canada, have adopted gender-neutral definitions of sexual assault, recognising that any person—irrespective of gender identity—can be a victim or perpetrator. Indian rape law, while progressive in some areas, remains gender-specific, limiting its scope and excluding LGBTQ+ survivors from protection.

This stands in contrast to the NALSA judgment and Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which recognise gender diversity but are yet to be fully harmonised with criminal laws related to sexual violence.

c) Restorative Justice Models

Countries like New Zealand and Norway have explored restorative justice frameworks, where survivors are offered support, agency, and alternative pathways to justice outside the traditional adversarial model.[28] While such models are not without controversy, they prioritise survivor healing, especially in cases where criminal conviction may not be feasible or desired.

India’s justice system continues to focus on retributive justice, with little room for survivor counselling, trauma-informed procedures, or reparative outcomes. The victim compensation scheme under Section 357A CrPC, though a start, lacks consistent enforcement, funding, and survivor awareness.

d) Institutional Reforms and Training

Global best practices emphasise mandatory gender sensitisation for police, judiciary, and medical personnel handling sexual violence cases. In South Africa, the Thuthuzela Care Centres integrate police, healthcare, and legal services under one roof to support rape survivors.

India lacks such institutional innovation on a national scale. The absence of trauma-informed infrastructure, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, continues to limit access to justice and survivor dignity.

Conclusion

The 2013 reforms to India’s rape laws marked a historic turning point, both in terms of legislative responsiveness and public engagement with sexual violence. Triggered by the Nirbhaya case and guided by the Justice Verma Committee, these amendments expanded definitions of rape, introduced stringent punishments, and aimed to make the system more survivor-centric. However, a decade later, a critical evaluation reveals deep structural and cultural challenges that continue to frustrate the delivery of gender justice.

Despite statutory changes, implementation remains inconsistent. Survivors frequently encounter institutional apathy, police non-cooperation, judicial delays, and societal stigma. The legal framework, while reformed, continues to exclude marginalised voices—notably LGBTQ+ individuals and male/transgender survivors—and still protects perpetrators in the form of marital rape immunity, defying global human rights standards and constitutional values.

Feminist legal critique has highlighted that legal reform must not simply be measured by severity of punishment, but by how effectively the justice system empowers survivors, transforms public attitudes, and dismantles gender hierarchies. Law, in isolation, cannot achieve gender justice without deep institutional reform, intersectional policy design, and sustained social transformation.

To move forward, India must:

• Criminalise marital rape and make rape laws gender-neutral and inclusive.
• Strengthen survivor support systems, including trauma-informed care, compensation, and access to legal aid.
• Reform police and judicial practices through gender sensitisation, fast-track courts, and transparency.
• Explore restorative justice alternatives alongside retributive models, to prioritise survivor agency and healing.

Ultimately, rape law reform must be seen as part of a broader feminist project—one that reimagines justice beyond courts and statutes, towards a society where gendered violence is neither tolerated nor normalised. Only then can the promise of gender justice envisioned in the Constitution and the 2013 reforms be meaningfully realised.

---

[1] Authored by Manha Pratyaksha

[2]Justice Verma Committee, Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law (23 January 2013).

[3]Ratna Kapur, ‘Gender, Sovereignty and the Rise of a Sexual Security Regime in India’ (2013) 14 Melbourne Journal of International Law 317.

[4]Jhuma Sen, ‘Rape, Law and Justice in India: Feminist Perspectives’ (2015) 7 NUJS L Rev 137.

[5]Nivedita Menon, Seeing Like a Feminist (Zubaan 2012); Flavia Agnes, ‘Gender and Law: Contemporary Legal Challenges’ (2015) 50(17) Economic & Political Weekly 25.

[6]NCRB, Crime in India 2022 (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2023).

[7]Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, No 13 of 2013; see also Justice Verma Committee, Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law (23 January 2013).

[8]Justice Verma Committee (n 1); see also Flavia Agnes, ‘Rape Law Reforms in India: A Feminist Critique’ (2014) 49(2) Economic & Political Weekly 51.

[9]Nivedita Menon, Seeing Like a Feminist (Zubaan 2012) 94.

[10]Mrinal Satish, Discretion, Discrimination and the Rule of Law: Reforming Rape Sentencing in India (CUP 2016) 42–45.

[11]Tukaram v State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 185.

[12]Sakshi v Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518.

[13]Justice Verma Committee, Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law (23 January 2013).

[14]Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 357A; see also Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, s 9.

[15]Arvind Narrain, ‘Beyond Gender Binary: Reforming Rape Laws in India’ (2014) 49(16) EPW 33.

[16]Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Crime Victimisation and Reporting to Police in India: Insights from NCRB Data (2020).

[17]National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2022 (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2023).

[18]Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Guidelines and Protocols: Medico-Legal Care for Survivors of Sexual Violence (2014).

[19]Human Rights Watch, “Everyone Blames Me”: Barriers to Justice and Support Services for Sexual Assault Survivors in India (2017).

[20]National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438.

[21]Ratna Kapur, ‘Too Hot to Handle: The Cultural Politics of “Feminist” International Human Rights Discourse in India’ (2002) 28 Feminist Legal Studies 1.

[22]AIDWA, ‘AIDWA’s Response to the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 2013’ (2013)

[23]Mrinal Satish, Discretion, Discrimination and the Rule of Law: Reforming Rape Sentencing in India (CUP 2016) 73.

[24]Deepti Bhagat, ‘Intersectionality and the Criminal Justice System in India: A Feminist Critique’ (2020) 6(1) Indian Feminist Review 35.

[25]UN Women, Progress of the World’s Women 2019–2020: Families in a Changing World (UN 2019).

[26]UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13.

[27]CEDAW Committee, ‘Concluding Observations on the Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports of India’ (2014) UN Doc CEDAW/C/IND/CO/4-5.

[28]Kathleen Daly, ‘Restorative Justice and Sexual Assault: An Archival Study of Court and Conference Cases’ (2006) 46(3) British Journal of Criminology 334.

---

[1] Authored by Manha Pratyaksha