Evolving Rape Laws in India: Rethinking Consent and Addressing Legal Gaps

Authored by Aryan Sharma, a 3rd-year law student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai

Representational Image

Introduction

The R.G. Kar Medical College rape case, in which a female student was reportedly raped by a senior, shocked India and reignited discussions on sexual violence and institutional responsibility. The case was particularly disturbing because it occurred in a medical college, an institution expected to uphold safety and trust. This incident reflects the urgent need to revisit and reform India’s rape laws, especially in ensuring swift justice for survivors.

The case brings forth the urgent need for differentiated definitions of consent in rape laws, as the current framework often struggles to account for varying contexts of coercion, power dynamics, and tougher sanctions against institutional negligence.

The concept of consent lies at the center of the discourse surrounding sexual violence and the adjudication of rape cases. As the years have passed, the definition and application of consent in the legal framework of rape laws in India have evolved. There are several factors that can be attributed to this evolution: legislative reforms, judicial interpretations, and societal changes.

Legal professionals often seek clear and uniform definitions of criminal offenses to ensure consistent adjudication. Although it is true that crimes are generally understood as acts that cause measurable harm and moral wrongdoing, the wrongs associated with rape are much more complex; they encompass physical, psychological, and societal dimensions. Hence, the main argument this article makes is that it is preferable to have a more inclusive definition of rape, one that explicitly addresses the various ways that the crime might be committed, in one go, and one which recognizes different forms of coercion, exploitation, and violations of autonomy.

Historical Overview

Early Legal Framework

Historically, Indian law recognised rape only as forced vaginal penetration by a penis, excluding other forms of sexual violence, triggered by very horrific incidents of sexual violence that shook India. This restrictive definition excluded other forms of sexual violence, which left significant gaps in legal protection.

The Mathura Rape Case (1972) and the 1983 Amendment

The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1983 made drastic changes and added Sections 376B, 376C, and 376D to address custodial rape. The amendment was the result of a case of rape, popularly referred to as the Mathura Rape Case of 1972.

The Mathura Rape Case revealed weaknesses in India’s rape legislation, in the area of proof of consent. The Supreme Court’s contentious judgment that Mathura, a tribal woman, had ‘consented’ because she did not have visible injuries, outraged the public. This resulted in the 1983 amendment, which transferred the burden of proof to the accused in custodial rape and imposed harsher punishments.

Moreover, a provision was also added in the Indian Evidence Act, under which “if a girl in her testimony says that there was no consent given by her, then the court shall presume the same and the onus to prove that there was consent lies on the accused.”

The Nirbhaya Case (2012) and the 2013 Amendment

Later, in 2012, the Nirbhaya Case shook the entire nation, its brutality sparking nationwide outrage. The case catalysed legislative reforms and increased public awareness about sexual violence. Therefore, in its aftermath, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was passed in which the Justice Verma Committee was constituted, amending Section 375 of the IPC. The additional provision regarding the insertion of any object was driven by the Nirbhaya Case, when actual rods were inserted inside the victim’s body. Additional provisions included stricter punishments, including the death penalty for heinous cases, and new offenses like acid attacks, stalking, and voyeurism were criminalised.

The Concerns with Consent

If we observe the history of how rape cases have been adjudicated prior to the recent legal reforms, we can witness several underlying issues that drove these changes. It is imperative that these motivating factors are distinguished from the specific incidents that may have sparked public outcry and subsequently led to legislative action. Rather, they relate to fundamental problems within the law itself, particularly in how rape as an offense has been applied and prosecuted.

Most importantly, consent and its relevance in rape cases have been a matter of great concern. The judicial system's perception and application of consent were problematic and led to unpleasant results in many cases.

Historically, India’s adjudication of rape cases had ingrained legal and procedural problems, especially regarding the notion of consent. These were not just knee-jerk responses to sensationalized cases but were rooted in structural issues in how the law understood and defined consent.

Some of the key issues are judicial misinterpretations of consent; i.e., courts tended to confuse lack of physical resistance with consent, as was the case in the Mathura incident, where the lack of injuries was mistakenly equated with willingness. Additionally, legal proceedings tend to question the character, sexual history, or conduct of the survivor, which deviates from the accused’s behavior.

These problems of law led to a type of reformation on the basis of how the rape laws could be reframed and better enforced. They were concerned with the legal and definitional concerns rather than reacting to the particular merits of the case.

These changes were directed to the long-standing issues in the handling of rape cases by the justice system, particularly to improve the legal understanding and application of consent in sexual assault cases.

Secondly, by basing the definition of rape on the victim's will and agreement, criminal tribunals are inadvertently led to concentrate more on the complainant's past than the accused's actions. Therefore, proving a lack of consent remains a challenge, and it runs the risk of victim-blaming. This is exactly what happened in Tukaram and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra. The Sessions Court acquitted the two policemen on the grounds that the victim’s past sexual activity implied her consent to the act in the present case.

Nikunj Kulshreshtha, in his paper, critiques the prevailing standard of consent in Indian rape law, noting that it primarily recognises men as perpetrators and women as victims. This does not fall upon the victim to prove that they had no consent; yet again, this can lead to re-traumatisation and victim-blaming. It is pertinent to look at the Mahmood Farooqui v. State judgment, which showed the importance of the interpretation of the word “consent” due to the antecedent relationships of the accused and the victim with each other.

What has been done?

To address these problems, a number of measures within a consent-based framework are taken. To counter systemic deficiencies in rape adjudication, India has established procedural and evidentiary protections, for reducing disproportionate victim scrutiny. For example, Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act now restricts cross-examination of a survivor’s sexual history, and judicial guidelines disfavor victim-blaming language during trials.

Parliamentary attempts, like the 2013 Criminal Law Act, have widened the meaning of consent under Section 375 of the IPC to embrace positive, willing agreement and not passive compliance. The legislation also provided evidentiary presumptions, for example, under Section 114A, so as to reverse the burden of proof on the accused in some situations.

Regarding the other issues, to better manage the discourse in rape proceedings, the definition of consent has been established by the IPC along with the introduction of both evidentiary and definitive presumptions. As we can see, however, the crime of rape remains ill-defined and susceptible to bias and manipulation despite these advancements.

However, ongoing biases undercut these gains. The Mathura Case is still a lesson: the Supreme Court’s acquittal of the accused, on the grounds of lack of injuries and the victim’s ‘silence’ as evidence of consent, revealed how judicial interpretation can override legislative intent.

A deeper flaw is the consent-based model itself. In casting rape so much as an infringement on permission as opposed to autonomy of the body, the law unintentionally places the focus on the victim’s behavior; “did they object?”, “Were they ‘credible’?”, rather than the actions of the accused. This repeats the very flaw that the reforms aimed to cut out: putting the survivor on trial.

Lani Anne Remick argues in her paper that when there is a lack of verbal communication pertaining to consent, it would then be considered as “no”. She proposes a norm for criminal law that sanctions sexual assault, even in cases that do not involve any aggravating circumstances. It follows that, since such crimes must be strictly defined, proof of non-consent would consist of explicit signs and communications. Therefore, consent can only be considered valid if it is delivered vocally and affirmatively.

It is argued that the definition must be differentiated. The call to distinguish violent and non-violent rape recognizes that coercion may be used without physical force through emotional manipulation and institutional power disparities, as was also the case in R.G. Kar. But the present arrangement of the IPC is prone to blurring severity and harm:

1. Violent rape (marked by physical injury) often receives harsher sentencing, while

2. Non-violent rape (e.g., coercive sex without resistance) also encounters more evidentiary barriers, since courts continue to require ‘proof’ of lack of consent.

   
   

This clarity, while helpful, cannot redescribe the trial in terms of the victim’s conduct, i.e., “Why didn’t she struggle?” Rather, the law should examine the conduct of the accused: “Did they achieve clear and continuous consent?” This highlights the need to distinguish violent rape cases from non-violent ones. It should not place undue emphasis on the complainant's actions. This is not to suggest that all issues related to the law of rape can be resolved by such a distinction; sadly, no widely accepted definition could ever hope to achieve that.

The tension between legal theory and judicial application becomes stark when examining IPC Section 375’s definition of consent as “an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act” Although progressive in text, this formulation creates critical ambiguities in practice that demand resolution.

There needs to be a revision in the existing law to include that silence/passivity cannot be taken as consent, and that non-verbal consent should entail clear and active gestures.

Additionally, Section 114A needs to be tightened to assume non-consent in the absence of demonstrable affirmative agreement. While it makes sense for these cases to have a rhetorical distinction, law must then consider the quality of consent, i.e., whether the agreement was informed, enthusiastic and continuous. In addition to that, power contexts should also be explored in order to consider institutional hierarchies, which necessarily vitiate consent (doctors-patients, employers-employees).

Differentiating the Definition of Rape

The notion that there should be no distinction in the concept of rape gives rise to the appearance that it is hard to address every issue at once if the definition of rape is based on a single, generalised concept. However, a diversified definition will address practical issues with the law of rape more effectively than any undifferentiated term.

There are three methods by which this might be done. The first is to define the circumstances under which any consent that the complainant gives will be ineffective. The offence of rape might be defined as sexual intercourse without consent. The definition of consent might be similar to that outlined in the IPC. But then, further definition might be given to the circumstances under which the complainant does not agree by choice, such as cases involving cases of unconscious complainants, cases involving children, and cases involving a person with physical or mental incapacity.

The second approach involves formulating several distinct sexual offences centred on the pertinent autonomy-reducing circumstances that are mentioned in the evidentiary provisions of the IPC. There may be crimes such as engaging in sexual activity while violent, engaging in sexual activity while involuntarily drunk, and engaging in sexual activity while lying.

The third approach keeps rape as a singular offence while giving it a meaningful differentiation without basing it on a single idea. A single offence could be committed in several different ways. The definition of rape should be sufficiently broad to cover situations in which threats other than physical force are utilized, such as when there is an unconscious complainant, fraud, an involuntary complainant, children, or someone who is physically or mentally incapacitated.

All of the above suggestions can also lead to an added advantage, i.e., adjudication of rape cases by departing from the highly subjective standard of “depending on the facts and circumstances of each case”. This standard is prone to interpretation of the facts and law in a manner that is subject to manipulation by personal beliefs of the legal stakeholders, as well as being sensitive to the prejudices of other participants in the criminal trial.

Conclusion

The present vagueness in Indian rape laws provides space for judicial partiality and discriminatory verdicts. A nuanced model of classifying sexual crimes, one that classifies rape in terms of the conditions that nullify consent, would revolutionise the legal scenario.

There would be fewer arbitrary verdicts because unambiguous legal categories would reduce subjective understandings, with verdicts based on objective criteria as opposed to victim behaviour stereotypes.

There will be an increase in the circle of protection for survivors because, by unequivocally criminalising non-violent coercion (fraud, psychological pressure, institutional power differences), the legislation would seal gaps that bar justice to large numbers of survivors.

Also, structured definitions would force courts to examine the accused’s behavior and not the survivor’s, making trials more equitable and less retraumatizing. Such reforms would reaffirm a basic principle: sexual autonomy is absolute, and its violation—in any form—must carry unambiguous consequences.

The Indian laws on rape and consent are ambiguous due to their complexity. Lawmakers and judges have attempted to apply these laws to almost every possible manifestation of sexual assault. In many respects, problems still persist. It becomes difficult to establish that consent has not been given without oppressing the victim in the process. Laws should be clearer in themselves to avoid exploiting loopholes.

Furthermore, the statutes do not always criminalise non-violent rape. The definition could be more clear-cut and less susceptible to judicial discretion if the rules established different categories of rape based on the circumstances in which consent is defective. This would provide greater legal protection for victims, accord greater importance to their right to control their bodies and make it easier for them to seek justice in cases of rape.