Dismantling Carceral Norms: Gender-Neutral Sexual Violence Laws and the Promise of Transformative Justice in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractCurrent Indian law regarding rape, codified in Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, is still institutionally rooted in a heteronormative and binary system that identifies only cis women as victims and cis men as perpetrators. Such a legal structure not only excludes male, transgender, and non-binary survivors of sexual assault but also reinforces a limiting, essentialist definition of gender and harm. This article questions the epistemic and legal formation of the “ideal victim” and its consequences for access to justice within India’s criminal law. Based on constitutional equality requirements, the transformative possibility of the NALSA v. Union of India judgment, and trends within comparative jurisdictions like Canada, Nepal, and the United Kingdom, this paper argues that sexual offence legislation should be reimaged on a gender-inclusive basis. It also delves deeper into the contradictions of formal equality and substantive justice, with an emphasis on how gender-neutral legislation may be misinterpreted as being gender-blind in the absence of structural change, intersectional awareness, and survivor-oriented jurisprudence. The research places the discussion within feminist legal theory and queer jurisprudence in order to contend that gender neutrality is not in conflict with protecting women but can actually widen the liberatory power of law. The article finally argues that substantive legal transformation should go beyond symbolic acknowledgment and confront structural obstacles that impede justice for all survivors, irrespective of their gender identity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".