WHEN LAWS CHANGE BUT FEAR REMAINS: Women’s Safety in India

The promise of justice for women in India has been repeatedly tested by brutal crimes that shookthe nation’s conscience—the Nirbhaya case of 2012 being the most defining. That outrage notonly led to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, but also created a public demand forsystemic change. Today, with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replacing the colonialcodes in 2024, India stands at another turning point. These new statutes promise speed, victimcentric procedures, and modern definitions of sexual offences. The question is: have thesereforms translated into safer streets and stronger justice for women, or have they remainedaspirations on paper?

Legal Reforms and Key Provisions

In substance, the BNS largely retains the post-Nirbhaya framework on sexual offences—rape,assault to outrage modesty, stalking, voyeurism, and acid attack—but strengthens theformulations and aligns them with BNSS’s victim-focused procedures. One of the most notableprovisions is the codification of Zero FIR, which allows registration of a complaint at any policestation regardless of jurisdiction. This aims to cut delays, a chronic barrier to justice forsurvivors. The BSA, meanwhile, updates evidentiary presumptions in sexual-offenceprosecutions, making the system more survivor-oriented.

Official statistics, however, complicate the narrative. NCRB data shows that crimes againstwomen rose from 4.28 lakh in 2021 to 4.45 lakh in 2022, with the national crime rate increasingfrom 64.5 to 66.4 per lakh women. Far from suggesting a decline, the figures reveal a rise inreported cases. Some of this may be due to improved registration practices like Zero FIR and eFIR pilots, but the fact remains that women continue to face significant risks in both private andpublic spaces. Independent studies also note consistently high incidence in metropolitan areassuch as Delhi and Jaipur, underlining that law alone cannot neutralize entrenched social andinstitutional gaps.

On the institutional front, implementation capacity has expanded. By October 2024, 750 FastTrack Special Courts (FTSCs), including 408 courts under the POCSO framework, werefunctional across 30 States and UTs. These courts disposed of more than 2.87 lakh cases sincetheir inception—evidence of throughput gains, even as fresh inflows remain high. Yet challengespersist: conviction rates lag behind, investigations are often compromised by poor forensics orintimidation, and pendency continues to burden the system.

Case Example – Bhiwani Teacher Case

The Bhiwani teacher (Manisha) case of August 2025 illustrates both progress and persistinggaps. Public protests over an initially tentative probe, followed by a CBI transfer and a thirdautopsy at AIIMS, showed how citizen pressure can force accountability. At the same time, earlylapses—like a hasty suicide inference despite signs of struggle—exposed systemic weaknesses.This episode underlined why frontline procedures such as prompt FIRs, sensitive evidence collection, and transparent communication with survivors’ families are just as critical as statutory reform.

The judiciary, too, has played a defining role in shaping the contours of women’s safety laws. The Supreme Court’s handling of the Nirbhaya case reaffirmed society’s intolerance for brutal sexual violence and highlighted the need for fast-tracked justice in heinous crimes. Later, in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021), the Court emphasized that sensitivity and seriousness in addressing women’s complaints is not an optional virtue but a constitutional obligation. These judgments remind us that legal texts gain their real force only through empathetic interpretation and rigorous enforcement.

On the substantive side, BNS continues gender-specific rape provisions and criminalizes contemporary harms such as stalking, non-consensual image capture or circulation, and acid attacks with clearer penalties. Still, critiques from feminist scholars argue that the reforms stopped short of addressing marital rape and broader gender inclusivity. Thus, reform remains ongoing, with legislative advances marking progress but not finality.

So far, the impact of these changes can be summarized in three dimensions: reporting has improved due to Zero FIR and awareness campaigns, resulting in higher recorded incidence; throughput has increased with more FTSCs, though outcomes remain uneven; and public accountability has risen, with quicker escalations to state or national agencies in contentious cases. Yet, the ground reality continues to hinge on the initial response at the police station, the quality of investigation, and the degree of protection offered to survivors and witnesses.

Overview

A decade after Nirbhaya, India has certainly moved from silence to awareness, and from stigma to reporting. Laws have evolved, courts have created fast-track mechanisms, and society has become more vocal, as seen in the Bhiwani teacher case. Yet, the journey from law to justice is far from over. As the Supreme Court has reminded in judgments like Satbir Singh, sensitivity and seriousness in handling women’s complaints cannot be optional—they are a duty grounded in the Constitution itself.

The paradox of reform is clear: rising reported crimes do not necessarily mean worsening safety; they may reflect women’s growing courage to speak up. That is progress. But the true test of the BNS and BNSS lies not in statutes or statistics, but in whether an ordinary woman in a small town can walk into a police station and trust she will be heard, protected, and vindicated. Until then, India’s women’s safety laws remain a promise in progress—one that demands constant vigilance and commitment from every pillar of the justice system.

And somewhere, the larger question lingers in the public mind—whether the law is truly reshaping lived experiences, whether rising reports are signs of empowerment or reminders of risk, and whether society beyond the courtroom is prepared to stand as a shield for its women.

Legal reform is necessary but not sufficient. Empowering women, improving police response, and ensuring investigative and judicial efficiency are equally critical to turning statutes into lived safety.