In response to two separate high-profile instances of sexual assault, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have passed new, stringent laws to enhance punishment for sexual crimes against women and children.
These laws are championed as a “one-stop solution” for all forms of sexual violence against women in the country. The legislations introduce state-level amendments to provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Lawmakers claim that the amendments will reduce crimes against women and create a safer environment. However, these amendments are an attempt to modify a framework that is not inherently defective. Enhancing punishment has become the go-to option for governments to distract the outraged public from structural flaws in the criminal justice system and the administration’s own failures.
The focus must instead shift to the effective implementation of existing legal provisions – and this needs institutional and systemic changes. It is also crucial to recognise the concerns that arise from a deeply entrenched culture of violence and patriarchy against women, which cannot be dismantled overnight.
Evasive move
In January, the Tamil Nadu assembly passed the Criminal Laws (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Bill, 2025. A few weeks earlier, in late December, a 19-year-old student had been sexually assaulted on the Anna University campus in Chennai.
Similarly, in September, the West Bengal Assembly passed the Aparajita Woman and Child (West Bengal Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2024. This followed days of outrage, public protests and demonstrations over the rape and murder of a trainee doctor on the premises of the RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata in August.
Other states have also passed similar laws follow cases of sexual assault and violence. For instance, Andhra Pradesh in 2019 introduced the Disha Act expediting trial and awarding capital punishment for certain offences while Maharashtra in 2020 passed the Shakti Act that prescribed quick investigation and increasing the quantum of punishment for some offences.
None of these bills have received the President’s assent as of today.
These acts have evocative, gender-specific titles, like West Bengal’s “Aparajita” Act, Andhra Pradesh’s Disha Act and Maharashtra’s Shakti Act, which diverge from naming conventions for legislations. This reflects a tendency to prioritise public appeasement and mitigating anger over meaningful reform. It is a politically effective strategy in which changes to substantive law are perceived as the obvious solution to address crimes of sexual violence.
Reactionary amendments followed other high-profile cases as well, such as the 2012 gang rape of a young woman in Delhi and the 2018 rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl in Kathua in Jammu. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, widened the definition of rape, increased punishments, introduced new offences like stalking and voyeurism, and made consent-based reforms, while the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, enhanced penalties, introduced death penalty for the rape of girls below 12 years and increased minimum sentences for the rape of minors and adult women.
More harm than good
Often, such amendments are not only redundant but also introduce issues that did not previously exist. Excessively harsh punishments, for instance, can reduce reporting rates in sexual offences where the accused is often someone known to the survivor. Survivors may also face immense pressure from their families to keep silent, knowing that reporting the crime could lead to a death sentence, if the law mandates it.
The effect of these amendments is also uncertain since comprehensive studies are rarely conducted either before or after their enactment. These legislations are rarely reviewed systematically, with no assessment of the potential harm they may cause.
Substantive penal laws must be drafted with great care, based on thorough research to determine their necessity and to assess the potential impact they may have. When creating laws that will affect millions, their implications should be fully understood. Or if there is the risk of compounding the problems of an already struggling system. A casual approach to changing the law, especially for political gains, can have serious and far-reaching consequences.
The amendments also conflict with established legal principles. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaces the Indian Penal Code, prescribes the death penalty for severe offences such as child rape and repeat offenders. But West Bengal’s Aparajita Act controversially extends the death penalty to rape simpliciter – rape without any aggravating circumstances – disregarding the recommendations of the JS Verma Committee constituted after the 2012 Delhi gang rape and the Law Commission.
The reintroduction of the mandatory death penalty is also unconstitutional and violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1983 striking down the death penalty for murder and undermines the principle that courts must have discretion in sentencing.
When punishments are made harsher in response to rising crime rates, the goal is to set an example by using the threat of severe penalties as a deterrent. In doing so, the legislature shifts from the principle of a measured punishment to a utilitarian approach, prioritising societal outcomes over individual justice.
Rather than punishing offenders based on the severity of their actions and what they deserve, this approach focuses on using punishment as a tool to influence societal behaviour and achieve a perceived greater good. It reduces individuals to instruments of crime prevention, disregarding their autonomy and free will.
Consequently, every high-profile crime provokes a legislative reaction, leading to progressively harsher penalties for the same offence. Punishments, thus, are tailored not to fit the crime but to reflect the prevalence or societal response to that crime. Such a rationale could, in extreme cases, justify punishing innocent individuals if it serves as a deterrent and aligns with the broader goal of reducing crime.
Penal laws should ensure justice, not merely serve political agendas. A thoughtful approach must prioritise research, institutional and systemic legal reforms and aim to bring about broader social changes.
Eesha Shrotriya and Shantanu Pachauri are Assistant Professors and Co-Directors at the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, School of Law, RV University, Bengaluru.
