Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
“Crime Against Women in India: A Critical Analysis of Legal and Institutional Mechanisms for Prevention and Protection”
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
“CRIME AGAINST
WOMEN IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR
PREVENTION AND PROTECTION”
AUTHORED BY - VARSHA PANWAR[1]
ABSTRACT
Crimes against women in India remain one of the most
pressing challenges confronting the criminal justice system, despite
constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. This research critically
examines the legal and institutional mechanisms designed for prevention and
protection, situating the inquiry within constitutional mandates, statutory
frameworks, judicial activism, and international obligations. Drawing upon
doctrinal analysis, case law, and empirical data from the National Crime
Records Bureau (NCRB), the study highlights the paradox of robust legal
frameworks coexisting with systemic violence, underreporting, and patriarchal
bias. The paper explores the constitutional foundation of gender justice under
Articles 14, 15, and 21, and evaluates statutory provisions under the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS, 2023), and special
legislations such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. It further analyzes
institutional mechanisms including police reforms, fast-track courts, victim
compensation schemes, and the role of the National Commission for Women.
Judicial activism through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and landmark cases
such as Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and Laxmi v. Union of India is examined
as a catalyst for expanding protections and shaping legislative reforms. The
study concludes that crimes against women are not merely legal violations but
manifestations of structural inequality, requiring integration of feminist
jurisprudence, victimology, and substantive equality before law. Suggestions
include removal of the marital rape exception, gender-neutral drafting of laws,
strengthening institutional capacity, victim-centric judicial reforms, and
community-based awareness initiatives. Ultimately, safeguarding women’s rights
is affirmed as both a constitutional imperative and a moral necessity for
India’s democratic ethos, demanding continuous reform aligned with
constitutional morality and international human rights standards.
Keywords:
Crime against women, feminist jurisprudence, victimology, equality before law,
Public Interest Litigation, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, constitutional morality.
INTRODUCTION
Despite the constitutional provisions of equality and
dignity, the crime against woman is one of the most rampant issues that haunts
the criminal justice system of the country, India. Given this paradox, this
research paper aims to examine the effectiveness of India's legal and
institutional measures in the light of the country's constitutional frameworks,
statutory amendments, judicial interpretation and activism, and the country's
international obligations.[2]
These provisions were interpreted by the Supreme Court
in a liberal manner and the right to equality before the law, equality of
status and equality of opportunity are part of constitutional morality.[3]
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Court observed that sexual harassment at
the workplace is an affront to the dignity of women and is in violation of the
fundamental rights under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India,
and eventually it led to the enactment of Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace Act, 2013.[4]
Similarly, in the case of Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court emphasized
the need for strict punishment for sexual violence as a reflection of the
constitutional mandate to uphold women's dignity.[5]
The statistics show the seriousness of the situation.
The increase in the number of crimes registered against women by 12% in 2025
from 2024 indicates a continuing prevalence of traditional forms of violence
while cybercrimes against women rose by 140% in the past four years, reflecting
the need for a coordinated legal and institutional response.[6]
India is also compelled to safeguard the women because
of its international commitments. As a signatory to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), India is
bound to eliminate discrimination in all its forms.[7]
The CEDAW Committee’s 2026 list of issues urged India to adopt a comprehensive
anti-discrimination law, criminalize marital rape, regulate acid sales, and
establish one-stop crisis centers for survivors.[8]
UN Women’s scoping studies in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and Rajasthan
revealed significant resource gaps and implementation failures in shelters,
helplines, and hospitals, underscoring the inadequacy of institutional support.[9]
The UN system’s 2026 progress report similarly emphasized persistent gaps in
financing, uneven implementation of laws, and growing backlash against gender
equality.[10]
Judicial activism has been a great force in the
expansion of protections. The Supreme Court has also received petitions against
the marital rape exception to Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
which prevents rape prosecutions against a husband for sex with a wife, who
must not be a minor. This pending adjudication is a turning point in the
constitutional jurisprudence of India which can be used to bring India closer
to international standards of human rights law.
There has been scholarly praise and criticism of its
successes and failures. In the same vein, Dwivedi's study of domestic violence
has cast it as a serious violation of human rights and while the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been a significant step in the
modernization of Indian criminal law, he argues that there remains a lack of
enforcement, with institutional inefficiency and patriarchal beliefs serving as
major impediments.[11]
The Supreme Court's recent cases confirm the changing
environment. The judgments in 2025 and 2026 highlight the Court's
forward-looking approach to combating various forms of violence, including
traditional and modern, with a strong focus on women-centered remedies.[12]
These rulings demonstrate the judiciary's proactive efforts in tackling both
traditional and contemporary forms of violence, while emphasizing the need for
a woman-centered approach to remedies.[13]
However, there are challenges that are immense. There
remains a significant level of underreporting, partly because of the stigma
associated with reporting a crime, partly because of fear of retribution and
partly because of mistrust of the police or other law enforcement agencies.
Victim-blaming is often a consequence of patriarchy in police and judiciary.
The marital rape exception continues to be a glaring lacuna. Some provisions
like Section 498A IPC have been seen as being misapplied and there have been
debates on striking a balance between protection and protection against false
accusations. Comparative perspectives show that the UK and South Africa have
put in place gender neutral drafting and victim assistance, which can serve as
models for India to follow.[14]
This research is a part of a larger conversation on
constitutional morality, feminist jurisprudence, and human rights. It asks
questions about the effectiveness of the legal and institutional framework in
delivering justice and equality for women as guaranteed in the Constitution of
India. The study will critically analyze the statutory provisions,
institutional practices, judicial pronouncements and international obligations
to identify gaps and propose for improvement. It is doctrinal and normative and
asks how current mechanisms are related to the ideals of justice and human
rights.
DEFINITION OF
“CRIME AGAINST WOMEN” (LEGAL VS SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES).
There are two definitions of crime against women in
India, one is legal (codified in statutes) and the other is sociological (based
on structures and systems of patriarchy, inequality and systemic violence).
Although precise, a purely legal definition of domestic violence sometimes does
not fully elucidate the lived experiences of women who are victims of violence
in forms not always captured by law. On the other hand, sociological
perspectives offer a wider lens to view the issue of crime against women in the
context of social relations, cultural norms and institutional biases. It is
necessary to take an integrated approach to create a comprehensive
understanding that considers both dimensions, thus acknowledging that the crime
against women is a criminal offence and a symptom of structural inequality.
On a legal dimension, crimes against women are legally
defined by certain provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS, 2023) and special legislations enacted to combat crimes
against women. Historically IPC has acknowledged rape, outraging modesty, dowry
deaths and brutal treatment by husband/relatives. This IPC definition of rape
is sexual intercourse without consent, under coercion, impersonation,
intoxication or with a minor. These provisions were modernized in the BNS which
was introduced in 2023, which provides a broader definition of sexual offence
and prescribes a graduated penalty system, as well as tackling new crimes,
including cyber harassment. However, the marital rape exception remains, under
which husbands can be prosecuted for sexual activity with their wives who are
older than 18 years, and that this exception still harms women's bodily
autonomy.[15]
Other provisions are Section 354 IPC, which punishes
assault or criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty and Section 498A IPC,
which penalizes with the imprisonment of the husband or relatives for
committing cruelty towards the woman. Dowry deaths are covered under Section
304B IPC and Acid attacks are criminalized under Section 326A IPC. These
provisions have been preserved and extended in the BNS, to ensure and enhance
protections. Special legislations complement to the IPC and BNS.[16]
Physiological abuse of women is dealt with in the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein civil remedies included are protection
orders, residence rights etc. and also physical abuses of women are dealt with
in the Vishaka guidelines which were codified in the Sexual Harassment of Women
at Workplace Act, 2013 with provision for I.C.C in workplaces.[17]
Dowry prohibitions are penalized in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the
trafficking of women is put under control in the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956. Though gender neutral, the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, is important to the issue of protecting girl children from
sexual abuse. These laws collectively define crimes against women, in legal
terms, giving a framework of prosecution and punishment.
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) classifies crimes
against women under various categories like Rape, Dowry Death, Acid Attack,
Abetment to Suicide, Kidnapping, Trafficking, Cruelty by Husband/Relatives,
Crimes under special laws (POCSO, Information Technology Act). These figures
highlight the continued high levels of traditional types of crime against
women, as well as the growing prevalence of cybercrime, which increased by 140%
over the last four years, and the need for a comprehensive legislative and
institutional response.[18]
Also, the legal definition is influenced by
international obligations. On the international stage, the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the 2026 list
of issues brought by the CEDAW Committee to the Government of India, and the
scoping studies conducted by UN Women in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and
Rajasthan point to a range of resource gaps and implementation failures in
shelters, helplines and hospitals, indicating the weaknesses in institutional
support.[19]
The legal definition has been further expanded by
judicial interpretation. In the recent past, the Court has been invited to look
into petitions challenging the marital rape exception in BNS, a petition which
could be a gamechanger in terms of the legal definition of sexual autonomy.
Judicial activism therefore has a pivotal role in going beyond the statutory
text to include more crimes against women.
The legal view is a view where definitions of crime
against women are codified while the sociological view places crime against
women in the larger context of patriarchy, inequality and social control. The
sociologists believe that the act of violence against women is not isolated
occurrence, but a social relationship based on unequal power. Patriarchy is a
system of social structures that disadvantages women, perpetrated through the
use of violence, as described by Sylvia Walby;[20]
a system of social structures that disadvantages women is socially constructed,
as pointed out by Ann Oakley; and, R.W. Connell's conception of “hegemonic
masculinity” has emphasized how men use aggression, sometimes violence, to
assert domination over women, who are conditioned to submission by society.[21]
The sociological definition adds to this the concept
of intersectionality. While caste, class, and gender are all major barriers to
women’s rights, Dalits, LGBTQ+ women and rural women are subject to multiple
risks and are vulnerable as women and as part of marginalized communities.
Sociological factors intersect legal definitions in crimes that are not well
captured by law, e.g., honour killings, witch-hunting and caste-based sexual
violence.
The sociological point of view is substantiated by
empirical evidence. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5,
2019–21), 29.3% of ever-married women have faced actual Intimate Partner
Violence (IPV).[22]
NCRB data reveal that actual Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has been the most
common crime committed against Women over the years. The 2026 report by UN
Women revealed that there is a lack of support for women survivors of sexual
violence, gaps in the implementation of laws and unequal access.[23]
This reflects that the problem of women's crime is not only about the law but
also the structure of society that leads to gender-based violence.
Another aspect of the sociological approach is that it
also attends to violence that is not necessarily legally defined. Financial
independence is the basis of independence, and economic violence, which is
oriented towards restricting financial independence, promotes dependence.
According to Pierre Bourdieu symbolic violence takes place in cultural
practices of normalization of subordination, and institutional violence through
the biases that law enforcement and judiciary are responsible for, which leads
to secondary victimization. These types of violence bring the understanding
beyond what is legally understood and emphasize the need for comprehensive
interventions.
Legal and sociological viewpoints interwoven show that
crime against women is not only a crime but also a sign of structural
inequalities. The legal definition is precise and enforceable, and the
sociological one is closer to the truth about the lives of women today. Their
combined message is that combating crimes committed against women demands not
only prosecution of the criminals but a change in the behavior of the society
and a reform of institutions as well as a dismantling of the patriarchal
structure.
THEORETICAL
UNDERPINNINGS: FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE, VICTIMOLOGY, EQUALITY BEFORE LAW
An examination of women's crimes cannot be conducted
without reference to the theoretical models which inform us about the nature of
law, justice and social relations. The three factors of feminist jurisprudence,
victimology and equality before law, offer a framework for studying the
restrictions and opportunities of the Indian legal system in the context of
gender-based violence. Each framework offers a different perspective: feminist
jurisprudence looks at the patriarchal bias of the law, victimology emphasizes
the victim and his or her rights, and equality before law gives the
constitution a voice for equality and the destruction of discrimination. They
create a framework of triadics for an holistic study of crimes against women.[24]
To challenge the androcentricity of the legal system,
feminist jurisprudence came into the scene. The laws were traditionally said to
be neutral and objectivity, but feminist scholars argued that law throughout
history has been based on the experiences of men and excluded women.[25]
Liberal feminists demanded equal rights to the same opportunities within a
largely unchanged legal framework, suggesting changes in the system like equal
pay and the right to workplace protection. However, in India feminist
jurisprudence has played a pivotal role in the development of judicial
activism, as put forth by intersectional feminism, which was propounded by
Kimberlé Crenshaw, which puts emphasis on the experience of violence not only
on the gender ground but also on caste, class, religion and sexuality. These
cases demonstrate the concept of feminist jurisprudence and how it is applied
in judicial reasoning, challenging and setting aside the norms of patriarchy,
and further extending protection.[26]
An additional important theoretical foundation is
provided by victimology. The criminal law tradition is traditionally one that
has been geared towards punishment and deterrence of the wrongdoer. It is an
approach that redirects the focus to victims, highlighting their rights, needs
and experiences and examines how victimization patterns, victim-offender
relationships and institutions can support or marginalize victims. Theories
like victim precipitation, lifestyle, routine activity describe the risk of being
a victim of crime, but the victimology perspective has come under criticism in
India since it is not acceptable to blame the victim.[27]
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS, 2023) provide for compensation to the victims and such
mechanisms as the Central Victim Compensation Fund and One Stop Centers (Sakhi)
institutionalize support for victims.[28]
Judicial rulings have also helped to promote the rights of victims. In Delhi
Domestic Working Women's Forum v Union of India, Supreme Court highlighted the
importance of compensation and counselling in rape cases.[29]
Victimology thus shifts focus of criminal justice from punishment to a
victim-centric approach, thus not letting the victim get pushed aside in the
name of punishment.
Gender equality is founded on the principle of
equality before law. There is equality before the law and equal protection of
the law in Article 14, which has both a negative dimension (special privileges
are not allowed) and a positive dimension (reasonable classification to ensure
substantive equality). Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination based on sex and
Article 15(3) allows for “special provisions” for women, which is an example of
protective discrimination. These guarantees have been extended by judicial
interpretation. Thus, in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, equality and
arbitrariness were sworn enemies and the Court introduced the doctrine of
arbitrariness.[30]
In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Court recognised
transgender individuals as a third gender with equal rights under the Hindu
succession, thereby challenging the patriarchal norms of inheritance in the
Hindu law.[31]
In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court ruled that daughters also have
equal rights to coparcenary under the Hindu law, also challenging the
patriarchy of Hindu law.[32]
Formal equality is crucial and so is substantive
equality. The difference between formal equality and substantive equality is
important in the context of gender justice where there is a need for protective
discrimination (Article 15(3)) alongside the call for gender neutral laws.
Feminist jurisprudence challenges formal equality because it does not recognise
structural inequalities, and victimology focuses on substantive equality by
prioritising the needs of the victim. Equality before the law therefore gives
constitutional legitimacy to the reform which is not just neutral but also
justice.[33]
When combined and applied together, these frameworks
demonstrate that they complement each other. Feminist jurisprudence is a
critique of the bias of patriarchy and calls for structural changes.
Victimology guarantees the voice and rights of the victims are at the heart of
the justice process. Equality before law gives constitutional authority to
eradicate discrimination and to progress towards substantive justice. The two
together provide a complete basis for studying crimes committed against women
on a theoretical basis. They draw attention to the fact that justice is not
just punitive, but restorative, transformative and equitable, and that justice
systems need to shift from being neutral to being equal, from offender-oriented
to victim-oriented, and from being patriarchal to feminist.
ROLE OF PILS IN
EXPANDING PROTECTIONS.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been one of the
most revolutionary of the innovations in the constitutional law of India,
especially in the expansion of protection provided to the marginalized groups
such as the women. PILs came into the picture in the late 1970s and early 1980s
which changed the old paradigm of litigation by enabling individuals, social
groups and non-governmental organizations to file PILs in the courts on behalf
of those who were unable to do so. The extension of locus standi allowed the
judiciary to play the role of a protector of “fundamental rights” particularly
of vulnerable groups. In the case of women, PILs have played a pivotal role in
challenging the institutionalized discrimination, harassment in the workplace,
domestic violence, reproductive rights, and custodial abuse, thus fulfilling
basic constitutional rights in Articles 14, 15 and 21.
The PIL movement, in India, began with judicial
activism by Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati who felt that the
right to access the courts should not be limited to the formalities of law.[34]
They had ushered in the concept of PIL by relaxing the procedure. This was
especially important for women, who were often stifled by illiteracy, poverty
and social stigma in court approaches. PIL had thus become a way to promote
gender justice, which helped to implement systemic changes in gaps in the
legislation or the executive.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) was one of the
most important PILs in this regard as Bhanwari Devi, a social worker who tried
to curb child marriage, was gang-raped and the case exposed the lack of legal
safeguards against sexual harassment in the workplace. The Vishaka Guidelines
were issued by the Supreme Court, based on the rights enshrined in Articles 14,
15 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as international conventions such as the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW), 1979, that required preventive measures and remedies to combat sexual
harassment in the workplace.[35]
These guidelines were in force until the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 replaced them. The
case is a classic example of PILs being able to fill legislative lacuna, adding
to constitutional safeguards, and invoking statutory changes.
In another PIL, Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum
v. Union of India (1995), the Court discussed how domestic workers victims of
sexual assault are in a very vulnerable position and emphasized the need for
compensation, counselling and legal aid to be provided.[36]
It was a case of moving from a victimless attitude towards victim-centered
justice and it was a constitutionalizing of victimology principles. It
emphasized the importance of going beyond the punishment of the offender to
rehabilitation and support for the victims and survivors.
In Laxmi v Union of India (2013), a PIL filed by an
acid attack survivor, the Supreme Court issued directions for regulating the
sale of acids, established compensation schemes and stressed on medical
treatment for the acid attack survivors, which resulted in the introduction of
criminal acid laws in the IPC and CrPC under Sections 326A and 326B IPC.[37]
This case is a good example of PILs directly impacting the legislative process,
influencing the process of enactment. It also calls attention to the role of
the judiciary in responding to new manifestations of violence against women and
molding the constitutional provisions to the current reality.
PILs have also advanced reproductive rights. The
Court, in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) did not
consider itself to be a PIL case but did highlight reproductive autonomy as
part of Article 21, which has been invoked in subsequent PILs that protested
the restrictions on abortion, maternal health services and contraceptives.[38]
Such interventions are consistent with feminist jurisprudence for the
protection of reproductive rights as part of the concepts of equality and
dignity.
Custodial violence against women has also been taken
up by PILs. In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), the Court responded
to a journalist's petition in respect of the "custodial abuse" of
women prisoners, directing the separation of women prisoners from male
prisoners, appointment of female staff and providing legal aid facilities to
women prisoners. This case widened the scope of protection for women in prison,
so that the protection of the constitution applies to prison even.[39]
PILs have not only resulted in individual
accountability, but also institutional accountability. Governments have been
ordered to implement One Stop Centers, helplines and compensation plans for
victims of violence. They have called for changes in the police force;
sensitization programmed and fast-track courts for sexual offences. These
interventions are systemic in nature and the judiciary's proactive stance in
operationalizing constitutional protection via PILs.
PIL has been pointed out to as a vehicle for a
revolutionary change in the struggle for gender justice. In sum, these
perspectives highlight that PILs are not only legal devices but social change
devices, and that the role of PILs in agenda-setting, even if enforcement is
not uniform, is evident from the empirical work of Avani Sood.
But PILs have their drawbacks. Lack of implementation
is sometimes a problem that defeats judicial directions: For example, the
Vishaka Guidelines were not implemented until they were codified in 2013. It is
said that PILs have sometimes resulted in a violation of the separation of
powers as courts have intruded into the legislative and executive functions.
Accessibility is a problem, because PILs rely on active NGOs and activists;
direct access may not be available for marginalized women. Backlash from conservative
groups also weakens PILs favourable for progress, reflecting the society's
resistance to gender equality. While these are constraints, PILS are a vital
tool to augment protection, to fill the gap between ideals and reality in this
Constitutional framework.
PILs are substantive equality and dignity as they are
operationalized under the Constitution in articles 14, 15 and 21. They
represent the notion of constitutional morality which puts domestic law in line
with international commitments such as CEDAW. PILs have been used by courts to
give new dimensions to the meaning of “life and liberty” such as dignity,
bodily autonomy and workplace safety. PIL has thus changed the nature of
constitutional jurisprudence by interpreting fundamental rights in a dynamic manner
that is responsive to gender justice.
CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTIONS
Despite the presence of a robust law, the continuation
of crimes against women in India reflects a paradox of systematic violence,
under reporting, patriarchal bias, and a strong law. While the Constitution of
India, under Articles 14, 15 and 21, guarantees protection from violence, as
well as India having ratified various international instruments including
CEDAW, the lived experience of women shows that there are gaps in the aspects
of enforcement, capacity of institutions and societal acceptance. Protection
has grown further due to judicial activism in PILs and landmark cases like
Vishaka case vs. State of Rajasthan and the Laxmi case vs. Union of India but
the problem is ensuring that this protection are implemented in practice.
The final answer that comes out is that crimes against
women are not only violations of the law, they are evidence of structural
inequalities. It is imperative to take a comprehensive approach that combines a
legal, institutional and sociological lens to address violence, which is
reinforced by patriarchy, intersectionality and institutional complicity. In
the victimology perspective, the focus is on who the victim is and the need to
restore dignity, compensation and rehabilitation. Feminist jurisprudence questions
the patriarchy in the law and calls for changing the structure of the law.
Equality is a constitutional good that can be used to eliminate discrimination
and promote substantive justice. These frameworks have both pointed to the need
to tackle gender inequalities as well as convict perpetrators of crimes against
women.
Following this analysis, some suggestions are put
forward. The first is the need to fill the gaps in the legislation. The marital
rape exception in Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita should be done away
with to make domestic law consistent with the constitutional morality and
international obligations as it is possible for males to be victims of rape as
well as for transgender persons. Provide gender neutral laws to ensure that
domestic laws are in keeping with the constitutional morality and international
obligations, with protection for women as may be necessary. Second,
institutional mechanisms have to be reinforced. The police sensitization
programmes, women police stations, and fast-track courts should be expanded and
properly resourced. Issues around services to victims, such as One Stop
Centres, helplines and compensation schemes should be made available and
effective. Third, judicial reforms should focus on the principle of uniform
sentencing, victim-centred approach and proactive use of international
instruments. Fourth, policy interventions should be attention to awareness,
education and community engagement. Attitudes can change in the community
through campaigns that challenge gender norms, through school curriculum that
emphasizes equality, and through community-focused interventions. Sixth,
comparative perspectives should be taken with great care, learn from such
jurisdictions as South Africa and the UK which prioritize victim support and
gender-neutral drafting, and situate reforms of the law in the socio-cultural
context of India.
Last, but not least, continuous monitoring and
evaluation is critical. The NCRB data, surveys from NFHS and UN reports have to
be made a part of policymaking with evidence-based interventions. Civil society
and NGOs should be given the authority to support and advocate at the
grassroots level to complement state institutions. Media and technology need to
be used wisely and responsibly, with a focus on cybercrimes and raising
awareness. Finally, the protection of women's rights is not only a matter of law
but also of the constitution and morals of India's democratic spirit. The
movement for gender justice should be a continuous one, which looks at crimes
against women in the context of human rights and constitutional morality and
social transformation.
How to Cite This Article
VARSHA PANWAR, “Crime Against Women in India: A Critical Analysis of Legal and Institutional Mechanisms for Prevention and Protection”., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. 4, Issue 1, September 2026, pp. 375-390, DOI Link: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/09.2026-41625263/“Crime Against Women in India: A Critical Analys. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/public/details/crime-against-women-in-india-a-critical-analysis-of-legal-and-institutional-mechanisms-for-prevention-and-protection
Author & Publication Record
Authors: VARSHA PANWAR
Registration ID: 107066 | Published Paper ID: WBL7066
Year: Sep- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 1
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 375-390
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied