SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST MALE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST MALE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST MALE
INTRODUCTION
Sexual harassment is a widespread infringement of personal dignity, bodily autonomy and a fundamental right to equality. In India, the legalization of sexual harassment has come out mainly as a reaction to the previous and structural discrimination of women, especially in the workplace and other places. As much as this gender-specific legal development was necessary and justified, it has also culminated in this conceptualization of sexual harassment, which is largely non-inclusive of male victims and is thus, un-, in-, and under-protected, and under-compensated.
This exclusion is manifested in the current statutory regime in India. Articles on sexual harassment in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alongside an Act on sexual harassment of women at workplaces (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013, clearly identify women as the only victims of sexual harassment. Such laws do not offer any similar redress to male victims, thus leaving a legal vacuum. Such silence by the legislature is especially worrisome in the light of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India that ensure equality before law and the right to live with dignity to every person, regardless of sex.
In India, judicial interpretation has been instrumental in formulating the law on sexual harassment. The Vishaka v. landmark decision of the Supreme Court. The State of Rajasthan provided the basis of the jurisprudence of harassment in the workplace by declaring sexual harassment as a fundamental right infringement. Nevertheless, the ruling presented the topic of sexual harassment as a problem that mostly concerns the equality and security of women in the workplace. Later judicial and legislative history has followed this paradigm and solidified a gender specific concept of sexual harassment, as well as ignoring male victimization in the law.
In comparison, contemporary constitutional jurisprudence is associated with the increased focus on individual dignity, gender neutrality, and substantive equality. Counsel: Navtej Singh Johar v. These unions of India have denied the fixed binary of gender and affirmed that all people are under the protection of the constitution despite gender identity and sexual orientation. Despite this judicial progressive move, India's sexual harassment laws do not face the same constitutional review. Social stigma, which in turn makes male victims less likely to report abuse, and erosion of the universality of basic rights are all consequences of the lack of gender-neutral provisions.
In this study, it is contended that sexual harassment should be perceived as a human rights violation and not a gender-specific vice. Through research on the judicial mindset followed by the Indian courts, this paper aims to showcase the lack of consideration of constitutionalism and statutory laws of sexual harassment. The paper is a critical analysis of the current legislation, judicial cases, and scholarly debates with the view of finding structural loopholes and societal discrimination that affect the invisibility of male victims. Finally, the research will promote a more inclusive and constitutionally consistent sex/gender neutral approach to sexual harassment law in India, one that acknowledges and safeguards victims of sexual harassment.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The major goals of this study are:
To investigate the notion and the essence of sexual harassment of males in India.
To examine the current legal system of sexual harassment and its gender orientation.
The purpose of the study is to examine how the Indian courts dealt with male victims of sexual harassment.
To determine the lapses in the law, judicial interpretation and perception of society on male sexual harassment.
To recommend legal and policy changes to have a more inclusive and gender-neutral approach.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
The main research question of the paper is whether there is a lack of legal understanding and efficient judicial action to counter the issue of sexual harassment of males in India. The Indian criminal and workplace laws do not have explicit measures to address the male victims despite the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. The judiciary has not done much either in discussing this issue, therefore, denying justice and continuing gender-based assumptions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Does the Indian law consider sexual harassment of a male as a legally redressable wrong?
2. What have the Indian courts done to male victims of sexual harassment?
3. What social and institutional elements make male victims invisible?
4. Will current laws be in line with constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination?
5. What can be reformed to provide gender-neutralism in protection against sexual harassment?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research adopts a doctrinal (library-based) research methodology. Primary sources include statutory provisions, constitutional articles, and judicial decisions of Indian courts. Secondary sources include books, scholarly articles, law commission reports, and publications by international organizations. Comparative references to international legal standards are used selectively to strengthen the analysis. Bluebook (21st edition) citation format has been followed throughout the paper.
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: Politics of Women rights in India.
This work by Flavia Agnes is a source that offers a background insight into the historical development of the laws in India concerning gender to safeguard women against sexual exploitation and employment harassment. Agnes states that the legislation concerning sexual harassment developed as a remedial action to systemic patriarchy and gender discrimination that women experienced in their social and professional environments.
Although the analysis provided by Agnes provides women with legal protection that is feminist, it speaks out against the structural constraint of the Indian sexual harassment law in the sense that only a woman can be victimized by it. This concept is vital to the current study as it indicates why male sexual harassment has been given a blind eye in the law. The current research paper is an extension of this criticism as it attempts to determine the constitutional legitimacy of such gender-oriented protection in modern India.
2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) [Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241]
The Vishaka Supreme Court accepted sexual harassment in the workplace as a breach of basic rights in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and provided the measures of prevention and redress. Sexual harassment was conceptualized as gender-based discrimination in the judgment that impacted the dignity and equality of women at work.
This research is centred on Vishaka because it is the judicial basis of the law of sexual harassment in India. Nevertheless, its arguments based on women have provided a long-term effect, as the male victims of the law are not included in the conceptualization of the law. The paper offers a critical analysis of Vishaka to point out the role of judicial framing despite its progressive nature towards the gender-mono conceptualization of sexual harassment.
3. Aparna Chandra, Workplace Sexual Harassment Law in India: A Critique, 6 NUJS Law Review 211 (2013).
Aparna Chandra critically analyses the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, in terms of the statutory framework, institutional processes and constitutional conformity. She states that even though the Act enhances women's protection, it does not deal with wider equality issues.
This article is relevant directly since it challenges the constitutionality of the exclusion of male victims in the law of workplace harassment. The criticism by Chandra upholds the argument of the present research that a restriction of the protection by the law of gender contradicts Article 14 and is a discrimination that deteriorates substantive equality. The article gives legal justification for promoting gender-neutral reforms.
4. Law Commission of India, Sexual Assault Laws in India 255th Report (2015).
The law on sexual offences in India is revisited in the 255th Law Commission Report and reflects on gender neutral law suggestions. Although the Commission recognizes global trends and claims in support of inclusiveness, it continues to have a woman-based paradigm, basing it on social facts and the possibility of abuse. The provided Report is relevant because it shows that there is still a legislative unwillingness to acknowledge the sexual victimization of males despite constitutional and international tendencies. It is this Report that the current study employs to bring into focus institutional resistance and policy loopholes, with the main thesis of the paper reinforcing that male sexual harassment in the context of Indian criminal law is a sphere that has not been taken seriously.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Specificity of Sexual Harassment Laws in India regarding gender.
Jurisprudence on Indian sexual harassment is highly gender-based, as it is assumed that women are the only victims of sexual harassment. This is reflected in the criminal law and the workplace legislation. Sexual harassment is only a criminal offense against a woman under section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which is now retained with substantial changes under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). On the same note, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, only limits itself to protecting women.
Constitutionally, this exclusion can be problematic as per Article 14, which ensures equality before the law. Although Article 15(3) does not forbid protective discrimination, the total and complete denial of remedies to male victims of discrimination gives rise to an unreasonable category. Sexual harassment is not necessarily gendered as a transgression of dignity and autonomy of the body. The inability of the law to acknowledge this discredits the substantive equality.
Sexual Harassment as a Women-Centric Injury Brought Before the Court.
In Vishaka v, the decision of the Supreme Court. The State of Rajasthan was a developmental move in that it realized sexual harassment as a type of discrimination against working women associated with women's equality in the workplace. This socially responsive framing provided a ground on which to build a jurisprudence that does not include male victims.
Later court cases have mostly proceeded on this basis. The courts have continuously understood sexual harassment in terms of women's freedom and security, and they never consider the possibility of the same offence on men to be legally safeguarded. Jurisdictional non- intervention in the male victimhood is a sign of implicit acceptance of gender stereotypes that depict men as non-victims of sexual assaults.
The Constitutional Morality and the Scope of Gender Neutral Interpretation.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1], the Supreme Court pointed to the constitutional morality, dignity, and personal autonomy, without emphasizing strict gender binary. The court thought that the constitutional rights could not be bound by traditional gender role expectations.
Using this logic, the ongoing denial of male victims to the law of sexual harassment seems to be against the constitutional morality. The sexual harassment violates the dignity of Article 21 irrespective of the gender of the victim. Nonetheless, a loophole between the principles of constitutional law and their real-life implementation has been identified, as the Indian courts have yet to apply the same transformative reasoning that Navtej applied to sexual harassment jurisprudence.
Invisibility of Male Victims as an Institution and Procedure.
At the institutional level, under the 2013 Act, there is no mechanism of the Internal Complaints Committee that accepts a complaint made by a male employee. This has left male victims deprived of specialized redressal forums, and in most incidents, they have been left to apply general disciplinary provisions or civil redress, which do not offer sufficient redress to sexual misconduct cases.
The Law Commission of India, in its 255th Report, recognized the arguments in favour of gender-neutral sexual offence legislation but did not propose any reform, mentioning the risk of abuse and the current situation in society. This conservative policy focusing on speculative risks over the constitutional rights of male victims feeds the institutional silence.
Stigma in Society and How It Contributes to Judicial Silence.
The social perceptions are very important in influencing the judicial reactions. Male sexual harassment victims are stigmatized, not believed, and mocked, which does not encourage reporting. Such underreporting leads to the absence of case law and thus increases the judicial hesitation to tackle the problem. This reliance of the judiciary on reported cases, therefore, forms a vicious cycle where social stigma results in silence, which results in legal invisibility.
This social environment describes how sexual harassment of males has been a sphere of ignorance, even though constitutional provisions have been put in place. Male victimhood still lives outside the formal legal discourse without having clear judicial recognition.
CONCLUSION
In Indian criminal justice, male sexual harassment is a severely under-identified and unregulated phenomenon in the law. Even though the Indian law admits that sexual harassment is a severe infringement of dignity, equality, and personal autonomy, the protection is allotted to women practically solely. Although this gender tool has historically been a valid solution to structural discrimination, it has settled the systematic exclusion of male victims from institutional redressal.
The Indian judicial practice has been critical in creating this exclusion. Such landmark cases include Vishaka v. The State of Rajasthan, which improved the safety at the workplace by constitutionalizing sexual harassment, but in a way that defined it as a harm solely on women. Later jurisprudence has mostly followed this template, in that it did not question the issue of whether analogous types of violation of men should be subject to constitutional protection. Even judgments of transformation like Navtej Singh Johar v. The same cannot be said of the Union of India, which highlights dignity, autonomy and constitutional morality, which have not been accorded the opportunity to take a gender-neutral approach to the discussion of the sexual harassment laws.
The discussion also indicates that stigma in society, silences within the institutions, and the unwillingness of the lawmakers all play a part in the invisibility of male victims. The unavailability of statutory means of complaint and gender-neutral systems discourages reporting but also supports the stereotypes of the impossibility of male victimhood. This exclusion is in contrast to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which provide equality before the law and the right to live with dignity to all people.
Based on these results, it is clear that modern legal systems do not represent up-to-date insights into gender and victimization. The acknowledgement of male sexual harassment does not undermine the rights granted to women, but instead makes the constitutional devotion to justice, equality, and human dignity stronger. It is therefore necessary to re-examine sexual harassment laws in a rights-based and gender-inclusive approach to the law. The judicial sensitivity, along with the legislative reform, is required to make sure that sexual harassment is treated as an infringement of basic human rights, regardless of the gender of the victim.
Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. ClearLaw.online does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, ClearLaw.online, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.
INTRODUCTION
Sexual harassment is a widespread infringement of personal dignity, bodily autonomy and a fundamental right to equality. In India, the legalization of sexual harassment has come out mainly as a reaction to the previous and structural discrimination of women, especially in the workplace and other places. As much as this gender-specific legal development was necessary and justified, it has also culminated in this conceptualization of sexual harassment, which is largely non-inclusive of male victims and is thus, un-, in-, and under-protected, and under-compensated.
This exclusion is manifested in the current statutory regime in India. Articles on sexual harassment in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alongside an Act on sexual harassment of women at workplaces (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013, clearly identify women as the only victims of sexual harassment. Such laws do not offer any similar redress to male victims, thus leaving a legal vacuum. Such silence by the legislature is especially worrisome in the light of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India that ensure equality before law and the right to live with dignity to every person, regardless of sex.
In India, judicial interpretation has been instrumental in formulating the law on sexual harassment. The Vishaka v. landmark decision of the Supreme Court. The State of Rajasthan provided the basis of the jurisprudence of harassment in the workplace by declaring sexual harassment as a fundamental right infringement. Nevertheless, the ruling presented the topic of sexual harassment as a problem that mostly concerns the equality and security of women in the workplace. Later judicial and legislative history has followed this paradigm and solidified a gender specific concept of sexual harassment, as well as ignoring male victimization in the law.
In comparison, contemporary constitutional jurisprudence is associated with the increased focus on individual dignity, gender neutrality, and substantive equality. Counsel: Navtej Singh Johar v. These unions of India have denied the fixed binary of gender and affirmed that all people are under the protection of the constitution despite gender identity and sexual orientation. Despite this judicial progressive move, India's sexual harassment laws do not face the same constitutional review. Social stigma, which in turn makes male victims less likely to report abuse, and erosion of the universality of basic rights are all consequences of the lack of gender-neutral provisions.
In this study, it is contended that sexual harassment should be perceived as a human rights violation and not a gender-specific vice. Through research on the judicial mindset followed by the Indian courts, this paper aims to showcase the lack of consideration of constitutionalism and statutory laws of sexual harassment. The paper is a critical analysis of the current legislation, judicial cases, and scholarly debates with the view of finding structural loopholes and societal discrimination that affect the invisibility of male victims. Finally, the research will promote a more inclusive and constitutionally consistent sex/gender neutral approach to sexual harassment law in India, one that acknowledges and safeguards victims of sexual harassment.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The major goals of this study are:
To investigate the notion and the essence of sexual harassment of males in India.
To examine the current legal system of sexual harassment and its gender orientation.
The purpose of the study is to examine how the Indian courts dealt with male victims of sexual harassment.
To determine the lapses in the law, judicial interpretation and perception of society on male sexual harassment.
To recommend legal and policy changes to have a more inclusive and gender-neutral approach.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
The main research question of the paper is whether there is a lack of legal understanding and efficient judicial action to counter the issue of sexual harassment of males in India. The Indian criminal and workplace laws do not have explicit measures to address the male victims despite the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. The judiciary has not done much either in discussing this issue, therefore, denying justice and continuing gender-based assumptions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Does the Indian law consider sexual harassment of a male as a legally redressable wrong?
2. What have the Indian courts done to male victims of sexual harassment?
3. What social and institutional elements make male victims invisible?
4. Will current laws be in line with constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination?
5. What can be reformed to provide gender-neutralism in protection against sexual harassment?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research adopts a doctrinal (library-based) research methodology. Primary sources include statutory provisions, constitutional articles, and judicial decisions of Indian courts. Secondary sources include books, scholarly articles, law commission reports, and publications by international organizations. Comparative references to international legal standards are used selectively to strengthen the analysis. Bluebook (21st edition) citation format has been followed throughout the paper.
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: Politics of Women rights in India.
This work by Flavia Agnes is a source that offers a background insight into the historical development of the laws in India concerning gender to safeguard women against sexual exploitation and employment harassment. Agnes states that the legislation concerning sexual harassment developed as a remedial action to systemic patriarchy and gender discrimination that women experienced in their social and professional environments.
Although the analysis provided by Agnes provides women with legal protection that is feminist, it speaks out against the structural constraint of the Indian sexual harassment law in the sense that only a woman can be victimized by it. This concept is vital to the current study as it indicates why male sexual harassment has been given a blind eye in the law. The current research paper is an extension of this criticism as it attempts to determine the constitutional legitimacy of such gender-oriented protection in modern India.
2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) [Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241]
The Vishaka Supreme Court accepted sexual harassment in the workplace as a breach of basic rights in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and provided the measures of prevention and redress. Sexual harassment was conceptualized as gender-based discrimination in the judgment that impacted the dignity and equality of women at work.
This research is centred on Vishaka because it is the judicial basis of the law of sexual harassment in India. Nevertheless, its arguments based on women have provided a long-term effect, as the male victims of the law are not included in the conceptualization of the law. The paper offers a critical analysis of Vishaka to point out the role of judicial framing despite its progressive nature towards the gender-mono conceptualization of sexual harassment.
3. Aparna Chandra, Workplace Sexual Harassment Law in India: A Critique, 6 NUJS Law Review 211 (2013).
Aparna Chandra critically analyses the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, in terms of the statutory framework, institutional processes and constitutional conformity. She states that even though the Act enhances women's protection, it does not deal with wider equality issues.
This article is relevant directly since it challenges the constitutionality of the exclusion of male victims in the law of workplace harassment. The criticism by Chandra upholds the argument of the present research that a restriction of the protection by the law of gender contradicts Article 14 and is a discrimination that deteriorates substantive equality. The article gives legal justification for promoting gender-neutral reforms.
4. Law Commission of India, Sexual Assault Laws in India 255th Report (2015).
The law on sexual offences in India is revisited in the 255th Law Commission Report and reflects on gender neutral law suggestions. Although the Commission recognizes global trends and claims in support of inclusiveness, it continues to have a woman-based paradigm, basing it on social facts and the possibility of abuse. The provided Report is relevant because it shows that there is still a legislative unwillingness to acknowledge the sexual victimization of males despite constitutional and international tendencies. It is this Report that the current study employs to bring into focus institutional resistance and policy loopholes, with the main thesis of the paper reinforcing that male sexual harassment in the context of Indian criminal law is a sphere that has not been taken seriously.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Specificity of Sexual Harassment Laws in India regarding gender.
Jurisprudence on Indian sexual harassment is highly gender-based, as it is assumed that women are the only victims of sexual harassment. This is reflected in the criminal law and the workplace legislation. Sexual harassment is only a criminal offense against a woman under section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which is now retained with substantial changes under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). On the same note, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, only limits itself to protecting women.
Constitutionally, this exclusion can be problematic as per Article 14, which ensures equality before the law. Although Article 15(3) does not forbid protective discrimination, the total and complete denial of remedies to male victims of discrimination gives rise to an unreasonable category. Sexual harassment is not necessarily gendered as a transgression of dignity and autonomy of the body. The inability of the law to acknowledge this discredits the substantive equality.
Sexual Harassment as a Women-Centric Injury Brought Before the Court.
In Vishaka v, the decision of the Supreme Court. The State of Rajasthan was a developmental move in that it realized sexual harassment as a type of discrimination against working women associated with women's equality in the workplace. This socially responsive framing provided a ground on which to build a jurisprudence that does not include male victims.
Later court cases have mostly proceeded on this basis. The courts have continuously understood sexual harassment in terms of women's freedom and security, and they never consider the possibility of the same offence on men to be legally safeguarded. Jurisdictional non- intervention in the male victimhood is a sign of implicit acceptance of gender stereotypes that depict men as non-victims of sexual assaults.
The Constitutional Morality and the Scope of Gender Neutral Interpretation.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1], the Supreme Court pointed to the constitutional morality, dignity, and personal autonomy, without emphasizing strict gender binary. The court thought that the constitutional rights could not be bound by traditional gender role expectations.
Using this logic, the ongoing denial of male victims to the law of sexual harassment seems to be against the constitutional morality. The sexual harassment violates the dignity of Article 21 irrespective of the gender of the victim. Nonetheless, a loophole between the principles of constitutional law and their real-life implementation has been identified, as the Indian courts have yet to apply the same transformative reasoning that Navtej applied to sexual harassment jurisprudence.
Invisibility of Male Victims as an Institution and Procedure.
At the institutional level, under the 2013 Act, there is no mechanism of the Internal Complaints Committee that accepts a complaint made by a male employee. This has left male victims deprived of specialized redressal forums, and in most incidents, they have been left to apply general disciplinary provisions or civil redress, which do not offer sufficient redress to sexual misconduct cases.
The Law Commission of India, in its 255th Report, recognized the arguments in favour of gender-neutral sexual offence legislation but did not propose any reform, mentioning the risk of abuse and the current situation in society. This conservative policy focusing on speculative risks over the constitutional rights of male victims feeds the institutional silence.
Stigma in Society and How It Contributes to Judicial Silence.
The social perceptions are very important in influencing the judicial reactions. Male sexual harassment victims are stigmatized, not believed, and mocked, which does not encourage reporting. Such underreporting leads to the absence of case law and thus increases the judicial hesitation to tackle the problem. This reliance of the judiciary on reported cases, therefore, forms a vicious cycle where social stigma results in silence, which results in legal invisibility.
This social environment describes how sexual harassment of males has been a sphere of ignorance, even though constitutional provisions have been put in place. Male victimhood still lives outside the formal legal discourse without having clear judicial recognition.
CONCLUSION
In Indian criminal justice, male sexual harassment is a severely under-identified and unregulated phenomenon in the law. Even though the Indian law admits that sexual harassment is a severe infringement of dignity, equality, and personal autonomy, the protection is allotted to women practically solely. Although this gender tool has historically been a valid solution to structural discrimination, it has settled the systematic exclusion of male victims from institutional redressal.
The Indian judicial practice has been critical in creating this exclusion. Such landmark cases include Vishaka v. The State of Rajasthan, which improved the safety at the workplace by constitutionalizing sexual harassment, but in a way that defined it as a harm solely on women. Later jurisprudence has mostly followed this template, in that it did not question the issue of whether analogous types of violation of men should be subject to constitutional protection. Even judgments of transformation like Navtej Singh Johar v. The same cannot be said of the Union of India, which highlights dignity, autonomy and constitutional morality, which have not been accorded the opportunity to take a gender-neutral approach to the discussion of the sexual harassment laws.
The discussion also indicates that stigma in society, silences within the institutions, and the unwillingness of the lawmakers all play a part in the invisibility of male victims. The unavailability of statutory means of complaint and gender-neutral systems discourages reporting but also supports the stereotypes of the impossibility of male victimhood. This exclusion is in contrast to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which provide equality before the law and the right to live with dignity to all people.
Based on these results, it is clear that modern legal systems do not represent up-to-date insights into gender and victimization. The acknowledgement of male sexual harassment does not undermine the rights granted to women, but instead makes the constitutional devotion to justice, equality, and human dignity stronger. It is therefore necessary to re-examine sexual harassment laws in a rights-based and gender-inclusive approach to the law. The judicial sensitivity, along with the legislative reform, is required to make sure that sexual harassment is treated as an infringement of basic human rights, regardless of the gender of the victim.
Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. ClearLaw.online does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, ClearLaw.online, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.
INTRODUCTION
Sexual harassment is a widespread infringement of personal dignity, bodily autonomy and a fundamental right to equality. In India, the legalization of sexual harassment has come out mainly as a reaction to the previous and structural discrimination of women, especially in the workplace and other places. As much as this gender-specific legal development was necessary and justified, it has also culminated in this conceptualization of sexual harassment, which is largely non-inclusive of male victims and is thus, un-, in-, and under-protected, and under-compensated.
This exclusion is manifested in the current statutory regime in India. Articles on sexual harassment in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alongside an Act on sexual harassment of women at workplaces (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013, clearly identify women as the only victims of sexual harassment. Such laws do not offer any similar redress to male victims, thus leaving a legal vacuum. Such silence by the legislature is especially worrisome in the light of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India that ensure equality before law and the right to live with dignity to every person, regardless of sex.
In India, judicial interpretation has been instrumental in formulating the law on sexual harassment. The Vishaka v. landmark decision of the Supreme Court. The State of Rajasthan provided the basis of the jurisprudence of harassment in the workplace by declaring sexual harassment as a fundamental right infringement. Nevertheless, the ruling presented the topic of sexual harassment as a problem that mostly concerns the equality and security of women in the workplace. Later judicial and legislative history has followed this paradigm and solidified a gender specific concept of sexual harassment, as well as ignoring male victimization in the law.
In comparison, contemporary constitutional jurisprudence is associated with the increased focus on individual dignity, gender neutrality, and substantive equality. Counsel: Navtej Singh Johar v. These unions of India have denied the fixed binary of gender and affirmed that all people are under the protection of the constitution despite gender identity and sexual orientation. Despite this judicial progressive move, India's sexual harassment laws do not face the same constitutional review. Social stigma, which in turn makes male victims less likely to report abuse, and erosion of the universality of basic rights are all consequences of the lack of gender-neutral provisions.
In this study, it is contended that sexual harassment should be perceived as a human rights violation and not a gender-specific vice. Through research on the judicial mindset followed by the Indian courts, this paper aims to showcase the lack of consideration of constitutionalism and statutory laws of sexual harassment. The paper is a critical analysis of the current legislation, judicial cases, and scholarly debates with the view of finding structural loopholes and societal discrimination that affect the invisibility of male victims. Finally, the research will promote a more inclusive and constitutionally consistent sex/gender neutral approach to sexual harassment law in India, one that acknowledges and safeguards victims of sexual harassment.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The major goals of this study are:
To investigate the notion and the essence of sexual harassment of males in India.
To examine the current legal system of sexual harassment and its gender orientation.
The purpose of the study is to examine how the Indian courts dealt with male victims of sexual harassment.
To determine the lapses in the law, judicial interpretation and perception of society on male sexual harassment.
To recommend legal and policy changes to have a more inclusive and gender-neutral approach.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
The main research question of the paper is whether there is a lack of legal understanding and efficient judicial action to counter the issue of sexual harassment of males in India. The Indian criminal and workplace laws do not have explicit measures to address the male victims despite the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. The judiciary has not done much either in discussing this issue, therefore, denying justice and continuing gender-based assumptions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Does the Indian law consider sexual harassment of a male as a legally redressable wrong?
2. What have the Indian courts done to male victims of sexual harassment?
3. What social and institutional elements make male victims invisible?
4. Will current laws be in line with constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination?
5. What can be reformed to provide gender-neutralism in protection against sexual harassment?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research adopts a doctrinal (library-based) research methodology. Primary sources include statutory provisions, constitutional articles, and judicial decisions of Indian courts. Secondary sources include books, scholarly articles, law commission reports, and publications by international organizations. Comparative references to international legal standards are used selectively to strengthen the analysis. Bluebook (21st edition) citation format has been followed throughout the paper.
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: Politics of Women rights in India.
This work by Flavia Agnes is a source that offers a background insight into the historical development of the laws in India concerning gender to safeguard women against sexual exploitation and employment harassment. Agnes states that the legislation concerning sexual harassment developed as a remedial action to systemic patriarchy and gender discrimination that women experienced in their social and professional environments.
Although the analysis provided by Agnes provides women with legal protection that is feminist, it speaks out against the structural constraint of the Indian sexual harassment law in the sense that only a woman can be victimized by it. This concept is vital to the current study as it indicates why male sexual harassment has been given a blind eye in the law. The current research paper is an extension of this criticism as it attempts to determine the constitutional legitimacy of such gender-oriented protection in modern India.
2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) [Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241]
The Vishaka Supreme Court accepted sexual harassment in the workplace as a breach of basic rights in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and provided the measures of prevention and redress. Sexual harassment was conceptualized as gender-based discrimination in the judgment that impacted the dignity and equality of women at work.
This research is centred on Vishaka because it is the judicial basis of the law of sexual harassment in India. Nevertheless, its arguments based on women have provided a long-term effect, as the male victims of the law are not included in the conceptualization of the law. The paper offers a critical analysis of Vishaka to point out the role of judicial framing despite its progressive nature towards the gender-mono conceptualization of sexual harassment.
3. Aparna Chandra, Workplace Sexual Harassment Law in India: A Critique, 6 NUJS Law Review 211 (2013).
Aparna Chandra critically analyses the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, in terms of the statutory framework, institutional processes and constitutional conformity. She states that even though the Act enhances women's protection, it does not deal with wider equality issues.
This article is relevant directly since it challenges the constitutionality of the exclusion of male victims in the law of workplace harassment. The criticism by Chandra upholds the argument of the present research that a restriction of the protection by the law of gender contradicts Article 14 and is a discrimination that deteriorates substantive equality. The article gives legal justification for promoting gender-neutral reforms.
4. Law Commission of India, Sexual Assault Laws in India 255th Report (2015).
The law on sexual offences in India is revisited in the 255th Law Commission Report and reflects on gender neutral law suggestions. Although the Commission recognizes global trends and claims in support of inclusiveness, it continues to have a woman-based paradigm, basing it on social facts and the possibility of abuse. The provided Report is relevant because it shows that there is still a legislative unwillingness to acknowledge the sexual victimization of males despite constitutional and international tendencies. It is this Report that the current study employs to bring into focus institutional resistance and policy loopholes, with the main thesis of the paper reinforcing that male sexual harassment in the context of Indian criminal law is a sphere that has not been taken seriously.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Specificity of Sexual Harassment Laws in India regarding gender.
Jurisprudence on Indian sexual harassment is highly gender-based, as it is assumed that women are the only victims of sexual harassment. This is reflected in the criminal law and the workplace legislation. Sexual harassment is only a criminal offense against a woman under section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which is now retained with substantial changes under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). On the same note, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, only limits itself to protecting women.
Constitutionally, this exclusion can be problematic as per Article 14, which ensures equality before the law. Although Article 15(3) does not forbid protective discrimination, the total and complete denial of remedies to male victims of discrimination gives rise to an unreasonable category. Sexual harassment is not necessarily gendered as a transgression of dignity and autonomy of the body. The inability of the law to acknowledge this discredits the substantive equality.
Sexual Harassment as a Women-Centric Injury Brought Before the Court.
In Vishaka v, the decision of the Supreme Court. The State of Rajasthan was a developmental move in that it realized sexual harassment as a type of discrimination against working women associated with women's equality in the workplace. This socially responsive framing provided a ground on which to build a jurisprudence that does not include male victims.
Later court cases have mostly proceeded on this basis. The courts have continuously understood sexual harassment in terms of women's freedom and security, and they never consider the possibility of the same offence on men to be legally safeguarded. Jurisdictional non- intervention in the male victimhood is a sign of implicit acceptance of gender stereotypes that depict men as non-victims of sexual assaults.
The Constitutional Morality and the Scope of Gender Neutral Interpretation.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1], the Supreme Court pointed to the constitutional morality, dignity, and personal autonomy, without emphasizing strict gender binary. The court thought that the constitutional rights could not be bound by traditional gender role expectations.
Using this logic, the ongoing denial of male victims to the law of sexual harassment seems to be against the constitutional morality. The sexual harassment violates the dignity of Article 21 irrespective of the gender of the victim. Nonetheless, a loophole between the principles of constitutional law and their real-life implementation has been identified, as the Indian courts have yet to apply the same transformative reasoning that Navtej applied to sexual harassment jurisprudence.
Invisibility of Male Victims as an Institution and Procedure.
At the institutional level, under the 2013 Act, there is no mechanism of the Internal Complaints Committee that accepts a complaint made by a male employee. This has left male victims deprived of specialized redressal forums, and in most incidents, they have been left to apply general disciplinary provisions or civil redress, which do not offer sufficient redress to sexual misconduct cases.
The Law Commission of India, in its 255th Report, recognized the arguments in favour of gender-neutral sexual offence legislation but did not propose any reform, mentioning the risk of abuse and the current situation in society. This conservative policy focusing on speculative risks over the constitutional rights of male victims feeds the institutional silence.
Stigma in Society and How It Contributes to Judicial Silence.
The social perceptions are very important in influencing the judicial reactions. Male sexual harassment victims are stigmatized, not believed, and mocked, which does not encourage reporting. Such underreporting leads to the absence of case law and thus increases the judicial hesitation to tackle the problem. This reliance of the judiciary on reported cases, therefore, forms a vicious cycle where social stigma results in silence, which results in legal invisibility.
This social environment describes how sexual harassment of males has been a sphere of ignorance, even though constitutional provisions have been put in place. Male victimhood still lives outside the formal legal discourse without having clear judicial recognition.
CONCLUSION
In Indian criminal justice, male sexual harassment is a severely under-identified and unregulated phenomenon in the law. Even though the Indian law admits that sexual harassment is a severe infringement of dignity, equality, and personal autonomy, the protection is allotted to women practically solely. Although this gender tool has historically been a valid solution to structural discrimination, it has settled the systematic exclusion of male victims from institutional redressal.
The Indian judicial practice has been critical in creating this exclusion. Such landmark cases include Vishaka v. The State of Rajasthan, which improved the safety at the workplace by constitutionalizing sexual harassment, but in a way that defined it as a harm solely on women. Later jurisprudence has mostly followed this template, in that it did not question the issue of whether analogous types of violation of men should be subject to constitutional protection. Even judgments of transformation like Navtej Singh Johar v. The same cannot be said of the Union of India, which highlights dignity, autonomy and constitutional morality, which have not been accorded the opportunity to take a gender-neutral approach to the discussion of the sexual harassment laws.
The discussion also indicates that stigma in society, silences within the institutions, and the unwillingness of the lawmakers all play a part in the invisibility of male victims. The unavailability of statutory means of complaint and gender-neutral systems discourages reporting but also supports the stereotypes of the impossibility of male victimhood. This exclusion is in contrast to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which provide equality before the law and the right to live with dignity to all people.
Based on these results, it is clear that modern legal systems do not represent up-to-date insights into gender and victimization. The acknowledgement of male sexual harassment does not undermine the rights granted to women, but instead makes the constitutional devotion to justice, equality, and human dignity stronger. It is therefore necessary to re-examine sexual harassment laws in a rights-based and gender-inclusive approach to the law. The judicial sensitivity, along with the legislative reform, is required to make sure that sexual harassment is treated as an infringement of basic human rights, regardless of the gender of the victim.
Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. ClearLaw.online does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, ClearLaw.online, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.