Shobhit Pratap Singh
Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Revisiting Liberty of Woman Under Rape Laws in India with Reference to Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita: A Critical Legal Analysis Manjari Singh; Ridwan Arifin; Varun Chhachhar; Marina Gorbatiuc; Shobhit Pratap Singh; Prashant Singh
Unnes Law Journal Vol. 12 No. 1 (2026): Transforming Law and Protecting Rights: Contemporary Issues in Legal Reform an
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/ulj.v12i1.48005

Abstract

Rape was clearly defined as an offence in the Indian Penal Code of 1860, drafted by the First Law Commission. For over a century, criminal laws relating to rape cases remained unchanged until the Mathura Custodial Rape Case prompted the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983. Subsequent legislative responses followed major cases, the 2012 Delhi Rape Case led to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which provided for the death penalty in rape cases in which the death of the victim is caused or she is left in a vegetative state; the Unnao Rape Case of 2017 precipitated the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, which made the punishment more strict and inserted several provisions; and in July 2024, new criminal laws were enforced. Despite these successive legislative interventions, each considered revolutionary in its time, heinous incidents have continued unabated, from the Hyderabad Rape Case of 2019 and the Hathras Rape Case of 2020 to the Kolkata Rape Case of August 2024. The cases from Mathura custodial rape to Kolkata rape have witnessed no change in the mentality of the society, which revolves around gender injustice and questions the physical appearance of a girl/woman. This paper analyses the rape laws through a critical examination of the after-effects of the 2013 and 2018 amendments of old criminal laws and the provisions of new criminal laws. It also traces the evolving meaning of the "personal liberty" of women across this period. The analysis reveals that deterrent laws have become a necessity, yet their implementation in society remains ineffective. The core cause behind these recurring cases lies not merely in legislative gaps but in deeply entrenched social attitudes that successive amendments have failed to address. Legislative reform alone cannot deliver justice when societal mentality remains unchanged. This paper employs a doctrinal-analytical method, drawing on constitutional provisions, statutory texts, Supreme Court jurisprudence, parliamentary committee reports, and National Crime Records Bureau data to critically examine the legislative and judicial treatment of rape law in India. This paper criticizes the gap between law on paper and law in action, underscoring that the personal liberty of women demands not only stronger legal frameworks but their meaningful and consistent enforcement.
Transgender Persons and Structural Barriers in Criminal Justice: A Comparative Study of India and Indonesia Niharika Kumar; Rajvendra Singh; Shobhit Pratap Singh; Siddharth Chaurasia; Prashant Singh; Ridwan Arifin; Sergi Fernandez Alejandro
Unnes Law Journal Vol. 12 No. 1 (2026): Transforming Law and Protecting Rights: Contemporary Issues in Legal Reform an
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/ulj.v12i1.49589

Abstract

This article critically examines the structural and legal barriers faced by transgender (TG) persons within the criminal justice systems (CJS) of India and Indonesia. It systematically inquires into the gaps in substantive criminal laws, procedural safeguards, policing practices, trial process, and prison administration that exclude TG persons in India and Indonesia from access to justice. It focuses on three offence clusters: sexual violence, police violence/custodial abuse, and criminalisation through public order/morality laws. The paper argues that CJS of both the jurisdictions fail to protect TG persons not only because of social stigma or lack of recognition, but because the substantive criminal laws and procedural safeguards are designed around gender-binary notion and are implemented through hostile law-enforcement institutions. This research employs a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology to analyse the treatment of TG persons across three stages of the CJS: pre-trial reporting and investigation, trial, and post-trial prison administration. It contrasts India’s recognition framework- grounded in the landmark NALSA judgement and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019-alongside its criminal law scheme under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with Indonesia’s constitutional guarantees, recent KUHP reforms, Law No. 12 of 2022 on Sexual Violence Crimes, and morality-based regional enforcement. The research concludes that India and Indonesia differ in formal recognition but converge in structural obstacles such as gender-binary penal laws, police violence, and data invisibility. It recommends for substantive legislative reform, stronger implementation mechanisms, and greater institutional accountability to secure meaningful criminal justice protection for TG persons in both the jurisdictions.