Evolution of Legal Protection of Women and Women Centric laws in India:
Women in ancient India were the foundation of progress and culture. In ancient India “great men” were often identified by their mothers or wives. Such was the respect given to women. Women were not confined to domestic roles, they composed Vedas, taught martial arts, and flourished as singers, dancers, artists, and musicians. Figures like Ahalya, Draupadi, Sita, Tara and Mandodari stand as timeless symbols of strength, wisdom, sacrifice, and grace. Ancient India celebrated women. It was truly a feminist civilization.
This profound heritage of worship and admiration of women began to decline in the Medieval period which is often viewed as a dark period for women in India. Scriptures were misinterpreted, women roles became more rigid, there were widespread practices of child marriage, sati, purdah, women were denied property and were confined to kitchen and education was restricted. The patriarchal system was then reinforced.
Then began the Colonial Period, which had a mixed impact. It introduced certain laws to prevent atrocities against women. The era also saw the rise of early feminist movements and pioneering women in education, such as Savitribai Phule. Raja Ram Mohan Roy worked with the British to abolish Sati in 1829. Later, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar successfully pushed for the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856. Despite these efforts to reform, certain gender roles and practices were long established.
Following the Independence of India in 1947, significant steps were taken towards Women’s rights through the constitution and landmark legislations and judgements. Even though significant steps were taken, many forms of oppression persist in modern India. These challenges include rape, acid attacks, dowry deaths, honour killings, sexual assault and harassment, wage gap, minimized access to education and healthcare and patriarchal traditions and norms created to make men’s lives easier that continue to control women and their empowerment till date.
The journey of women-centric legislations started from Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act: 1856 and has expanded till Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) 2019 Act commonly known as Triple Talaq Act. Today there are more than 20 Women Centric laws in India. While a few of the ‘Colonial-era laws’ have been outdated and replaced by new acts, the foundation statutes remain recognised.
Despite the codified laws granting women the right to equality in many spheres, women in Rajasthan and Nagaland are still excluded from inheriting property by their customary practices that still prefer male heirs to female. Clearly while the legal framework has progressed, the reality shows that true gender equality is yet to be achieved. Therefore, even stronger legislations can help bridge the gap between the rights women are entitled to on paper and the reality they experience in everyday life.
The need for women centric laws in India.
Women-centric laws are essential in India because society is no longer inherently feminist. Most parts of the country are patriarchal, favour male heirs, and often view female children as a burden. While parents are congratulated on the birth of a boy, parents of girls are often consoled. According to the UN Population Fund, 4.6 crore (46 million) females are “missing” due to son preference. Between 2013 and 2017, an estimated 460,000 girls went “missing” at birth annually, with about two-thirds of these cases attributed to gender-biased sex selection, or foeticide.
Every woman should have the right to live and choose for her own life whether it is pursuing a career, completing a degree, or choosing a life partner. No woman should have to sacrifice her dreams to serve as a maid in an unknown household against her will. Laws favouring women are necessary because society must protect the exploited, not the offender.
In today’s world, misunderstandings about feminism and equality have intensified. Technology and social media have glorified misogyny. It is considered ‘cool’ to be a misogynist and belittle women in the name of ‘dark jokes.’ Showing emotions like empathy and humanity is considered to be a sign of weakness. False allegations of crimes also fuel growing hatred toward women, yet these cases constitute only 8% of reported incidents. Majority of the real cases remain unreported, where culprits walk free after assault or rape. Misogynists many a times exaggerate this minority, portraying women as a threat, when most victims are the ones who are unprotected.
Women-centric laws exist because women continue to face systemic discrimination and not to target any particular gender. Therefore, it must not be misused by women and no innocent person must have to suffer. Having said that, those who oppose these laws must also acknowledge that true equality has not yet been achieved, because if it was, the society wouldn’t need women centric laws. One cannot demand dowry and then complain about alimony; a woman too can pay alimony if a man is exploited. One cannot restrict a woman’s choices, make her a personal slave, and then criticize divorce laws. One cannot abuse their children and then lament custody rules and maintenance laws.
Women-centric laws are not about favouritism they are about uplifting the vulnerable and correcting historical and systemic injustices. While misuse of laws occasionally occurs, it is important to remember it’s not all women. These laws are very essential to ensure justice, equality, and protection for those who need it most.
Sources of Women’s Rights: Constitutional Protections in India:
Women-centric legislations, derive their power from the constitution. Women are assured equality and protection under various provisions of the constitution. Among the Fundamental rights, a few are especially significant for women, forming the foundation for their broader legal protections.
- Article 14 ensures equality before law and equal protection of law, directing that every individual, regardless of gender, is treated equally.
- Article 15 prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, while Article 15(3) empowers the State to make special provisions for the welfare of women and children.
- Article 16 guarantees equal opportunities for all citizens in employment and appointments under the State, reinforcing the principle of gender equality in public life.
In addition to fundamental rights, several Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) play a crucial role in shaping women-centric laws in India. Although they are not directly enforceable in any court of law, they hold immense significance in guiding legislation and policy making to protect and empower women.
- Articles 39(a) and 39(d) direct the State to secure adequate means of livelihood for both men and women and to ensure equal pay for equal work. Article 39A emphasizes providing access to justice by promoting equal opportunities and offering free legal aid to those facing economic or other disadvantages.
- Article 42 requires the State to ensure humane working conditions and provide maternity relief for women.
- Article 46 focuses on promoting the educational and economic interests of weaker sections of society, protecting them from social injustice and exploitation, while Article 47 obliges the State to improve the overall standard of living and nutrition of its people.
- Article 51A(e) encourages fostering harmony and a sense of common brotherhood, while rejecting practices that undermine the dignity of women.
For political representation, the Constitution provides specific safeguards to ensure women’s participation in local governance.
- Articles 243D (3) and 243D (4) mandate that at least one-third of the seats and Chairperson positions in Panchayats be reserved for women, with these reservations rotated among constituencies.
- Similarly, Articles 243T (3) and 243T (4) guarantee that at least one-third of seats and Chairperson positions in Municipalities are reserved for women, including provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as determined by the State. These measures aim to strengthen women’s presence and influence in political decision-making at the grassroots level.
Despite having extensive Constitutional protections, the question remains whether these rights have been truly realised? Article 14, 15 and 16 definitely exist on paper but in practice, women face discrimination, societal barriers, and limited access to opportunities. A huge example for the same is the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2025, India ranked 131 out of 148 with a score of 64.1%. The report said full parity remains 123 years away at current rates. While discussing political representation of women, several countries have achieved 50% or more women in their single or lower houses of parliament such as Rwanda (64%), Cuba (56%) Nicaragua (55%), Andorra (50%), Mexico (50%), and the United Arab Emirates (50%). France South Korea and Nepal also have a 50% Quota for women on candidate list. We need to see similar changes in India even though it seems like a distant goal. While women value the constitutional provisions as safeguards, these special rights alone are not enough. Their effectiveness depends entirely on strict and consistent implementation.
Landmark Women Centric Legislations in India:
Certain landmark legislations have been enacted by the Indian Government to tackle the repercussions that the patriarchy has gifted to the society. These laws address a wide range of issues faced by women beginning from the remarriage to equal property rights to employment or maternity benefits. A few are mentioned below.
· Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856
Widows in the 19th Century faced social exclusion simply for being a widow. They were married off at a young age and faced life long hardships their entire life ahead. They were treated as a financial burden and yet forbidden from remarrying or stepping out of the house to be financially independent. A lot of women were forced into Sati as it was still prevalent in some of the regions.
This was enacted under the British rule, fronted by social reformers Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, who argued that widow remarriage was permitted in ancient Hindu texts and tried to make widows’ lives better. The aim was to legitimize widow re marriage and abolish the social stigma and allow women to lead a secure life with dignity.
· Child Marriage Restraint Act (Sarda Act), 1929
Child marriage was a widespread evil practice. As girls back then were considered to be a burden on the family, it was common to marry them off at a young age. This led to several social problems, including high rates of child widowhood, health complications in young girls (due to early childbirth), death of the girl, and denial of education for girls.
Responding to social reform movements and pressure to improve women’s welfare, the British government enacted this law to set minimum marriage ages (initially 14 for girls). The act was enacted to restrict and discourage child marriages, in so doing improving girls’ health, education, and social status, and reducing the incidents of child widows and deaths.
· Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (with 2005 amendment)
Originally enacted to codify Hindu personal law on inheritance and succession, it used out to be biased against daughters, granting most of the property rights to sons. Gender bias in property rights led to women’s economic dependence; and therefore social reform and women’s rights activism pushed for amendments.
The 2005 amendment repealed this misogynistic portion of the law, granting daughters equal inheritance rights with sons in ancestral and self-acquired property, thereby promoting economic independence and gender equality within the family property.
· Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
The dowry system resulted in widespread harassment, violence, and deaths of brides and their family members. Rising incidents of dowry deaths required legal intervention. To prohibit giving, taking, or demanding dowry and prevent related harassments, and to protect women from violence and exploitation, this law was enacted.
To this day even though the law is enacted people take pride in begging for dowry. The sad reality of this society is maintainance even though legal is looked down upon and dowry being illegal is taken pride in.
· Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (amended 2017)
Women faced a lot of discrimination at workplaces during pregnancy; women were simply fired for being pregnant or were seen as a liability to hire. There was lack of job security and health protection.
There was a need to safeguard women’s health, promote maternity leave and benefits. To provide maternity leave, medical bonus, and job security to pregnant women, supporting their employment rights and well-being.
· Equal Remuneration Act, 1976
Gender wage gap was prevalent and there was a lot of discrimination in remuneration and employment conditions. Growing feminist movements and international pressure for gender pay equity paved way for such a legislation. Therefore, a law was enacted to ensure equal pay for equal work and eliminate gender discrimination in employment terms.
Even after the enactment of such a legislation, India ranks 131 out of 148 with a score of 64.1% according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2025. This proves that there is a long way for us to go.
· Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Domestic violence was widespread and normalised for a very long time. People thought it was the right of a husband to abuse his wife. A lot of people still have normalised women facing such violence and therefore many victims do not realise they are facing abuse. Therefore, survivors lacked legal knowledge and protection. The act aimed to recognise domestic violence as a serious violation of women’s rights. The act does not just recognise different forms of abuse (physical, emotional, verbal, sexual abuse) but also provides protection, relief and legal remedies for distraught women.
· Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013
Sexual harassment at workplace was always prevalent but was never recognised as a problem rather was swept under the rug as a modesty issue. The Landmark Supreme Court Vishaka judgment (1997) called for statutory protections. The aim was to prevent and redress sexual harassment at workplaces by mandat as haraory internal complaints committees and awareness.
· Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
Instant Triple Talaq practice led to unfair divorce practices and hardships for Muslim women. Men would pronounce Talaq thrice via texts and calls and instantly dissolve marriage with no chance to reconciliation.
Women were abandoned and left distraught overnight. Social and women’s rights activism later pressed for legal intervention in religious divorce practices. Later to, protect Muslim women’s marital rights, and promote gender justice in personal laws, this practice was banned.
Landmark Judicial Decisions on Women’s Rights.
The supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgements that have significantly advanced women’s rights and laws, addressing issues ranging from sexual harassment and inheritance to reproductive autonomy and gender discrimination in employment.
1. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017)
Shayara Bano’s story put a human face on a deeply patriarchal practice. Married for 15 years and a mother, she woke one day to find a letter from her husband repeating “talaq” three times, instantly divorcing her. Bano had no warning, no chance to contest the divorce, and no right to maintenance a humiliating trial stripped her of dignity. Her courage in petitioning the Supreme Court alongside six other Muslim women sparked a nationwide debate on gender justice in personal law.
In August 2017 a five-judge Bench struck down instant triple talaq by a 3:2 majority. The Court called the practice manifestly arbitrary and a form of patriarchy masquerading as religion. Women’s groups hailed the ruling as a major victory for Muslim women, ensuring that husbands could no longer divorce their wives whimsically and leave them destitute. After the ban, thousands of cases over 100 reported instances were filed as the law took effect. Shayara Bano’s victory was not just hers; it was a rallying point for gender equality in marriage.
2. Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020)
Vineeta Sharma’s case was a battle for equal inheritance a fight for daughters’ birthright. The old Hindu Succession Act (before 2005) had treated women as outsiders to ancestral property. Vineeta, whose father died before the 2005 amendment, argued that her right to a share was by birth, not her father’s survival. In August 2020 the Supreme Court unanimously agreed, firmly rejecting any gender bias in inheritance laws.
The Court held that any daughter, born before or after 2005, became a coparcener (joint heir) by birth on 9 September 2005, regardless of whether her father was alive then. The Bench emphasized that daughters cannot be deprived of their right of equality conferred upon them by Section 6. In plain terms, a daughter’s right is now absolutely equal to a son’s, settling years of confusion. By affirming that inheritance rights are hers by birthright, the court dismantled a deeply ingrained stereotype that only sons “deserve” family property.
3. Lillu Rajesh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2013)
In this case the plaintiff “Lillu” a rape survivor took on not the rapists (who were already convicted) but the medical system. The doctors had subjected Lillu to the infamous “two-finger test,” probing her body to judge her sexual history. The Supreme Court ultimately vindicated her rights. It bluntly ruled that the test is unscientific and cruel: it violates a survivor’s dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court proclaimed that a woman’s sexual history cannot be used as evidence, saying unequivocally, “A rape survivor’s dignity cannot be questioned by referring to her ‘habituation to sexual intercourse’”. This judgment condemned the test as rooted in “patriarchal notions” and ordered it banned. For Lillu and other survivors, the verdict was liberating. The focus must be on violence, not on shaming victims. The medical guidelines were changed, making the two-finger test forbidden in rape investigations. This decision put women’s bodily integrity and rights to privacy squarely above outdated biases.
4. X vs. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, NCT of Delhi (2022)
This recent case put reproductive autonomy at the forefront. ‘X’, a 25-year-old unmarried woman, was pregnant and required a safe abortion between 20–24 weeks. Under India’s 1971 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, only married women (and a few exceptions) could legally abort in that period. The Delhi High Court had denied X’s request, giving the reason that she was unmarried.
The Supreme Court overruled that narrow view. It declared that all women married or not have an equal right to abortion up to 24 weeks. Women’s rights advocates hailed the decision as a watershed moment. Activists called it “a milestone for the rights of Indian women” and a “huge step forward” for bodily autonomy. This ruling crushed a marital-status barrier in abortion law affirming that reproductive choice belongs equally to all women, which was a core feminist principle.
5. Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Though not a classic “rights conferred” case, Vishaka was a turning point in protecting women at work. It began with the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a grassroots worker who had tried to stop a child marriage. When the Rajasthan High Court absurdly acquitted her attackers citing that upper caste men wouldn’t rape a marginalised community women and it was impossible to do so in the presence of her husband, women’s groups petitioned the Supreme Court in the name of Vishaka, a collective NGO. In 1997 the Court lamented that India had no law to protect working women from sexual harassment, and boldly filled the void.
It invoked international norms and constitutional guarantee of dignity to lay down the Vishaka Guidelines: binding rules obligating employers to prevent and address sexual harassment. For the first time, harassment was officially recognized as a health and safety problem, not merely a private “modesty” issue. This judgment was hailed as a landmark legal victory for women. It remained the law for 16 years until the 2013 POSH Act and fundamentally shifted how workplaces treat female employees. Yet the human tragedy persisted, Bhanwari Devi herself never got justice her appeal has languished for decades. As she poignantly said, “I did not get justice, but my sisters and daughters will get” to the Hindustan times newspaper.
6. Air India vs. Nargesh Meerza (1981)
This early case tackled blatant sex discrimination in employment rules. Air India had service regulations forcing female flight attendants to retire upon their first pregnancy or within four years of service, or reach age 35 whichever came first. Male pursers, by contrast, could serve until 58. Nargesh Meerza and her colleagues challenged these sexist rules. The Supreme Court did not hesitate; it struck down the clauses on pregnancy and early-marriage retirement as unconstitutional.
The Court recognized that forcing a woman to choose between career and motherhood while men were not held accountable for the same violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 especially Article 21’s protection of dignity and personal liberty. As one analysis notes, the verdict “acknowledged the right of women to achieve gender justice and balance their professional and family life.” This was a powerful affirmation that pregnancy and marriage are not just justified grounds for firing a woman. The ruling ensured that working women need not choose between a livelihood and a family, cementing the principle of workplace equality almost four decades ago.
International frameworks and comparative perspectives.
- In constitutional terms, India’s framework barring sex discrimination (Articles 14–16) is comparable to other democracies:
The United States relies on the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil-rights statutes, the United Kingdom on the Equality Act 2010 and human-rights instruments, Sweden on explicit equality guarantees in its constitution, and South Africa’s post-1996 Constitution expressly outlaws gender discrimination. Saudi Arabia’s system, by contrast, lacks any explicit gender-equality guarantee and instead enshrines male guardianship in its personal laws.
- In criminal law, India outlaws’ domestic violence (DV Act 2005) and has strengthened rape statutes, but it still exempts marital rape when the wife is an adult. By contrast, the U.S., UK, and Sweden treat spousal rape as a crime and legislate against domestic abuse broadly, and South Africa eliminated its marital-rape exception in 1993. Saudi Arabia’s recent “Protection from Abuse” law remains vague on spousal violence and does not criminalize marital rape, and its Personal Status Law explicitly requires a wife’s obedience to her husband.
- Workplace protections also differ. While talking about India, the 2013 POSH Act mandates internal committees and redressal procedures for sexual harassment. The U.S. forbids sex-based harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the UK’s Equality Act likewise prohibits workplace harassment and now imposes a duty on employers to take proactive steps to prevent it. Sweden and South Africa also ban workplace sexual harassment by law. In Saudi Arabia, with gender-segregated work environments and no dedicated harassment statute, women generally have little legal recourse for workplace abuse.
- In family and inheritance law, India maintains multiple personal laws: under Hindu law an amendment in 2005 finally granted daughters equal coparcenary rights, whereas Muslim personal law still typically grants a daughter half the inheritance of a son. By contrast, the U.S., UK and Sweden apply uniform, secular inheritance, and matrimonial-property rules (spouses and children share assets equally upon marriage dissolution or intestacy), and South Africa’s equal-rights statutes similarly provide gender-neutral succession.
- Reproductive rights and maternity protections also vary significantly. India’s Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act permits abortion on broad grounds up to 24 weeks, and the Maternity Benefit Act provides 26 weeks of paid leave to working women. The U.S. now has no federal abortion guarantee (after the 2022 Dobbs decision) and offers only 12 weeks of unpaid family leave. The UK allows abortion up to 24 weeks and grants mothers up to 52 weeks’ leave (with statutory pay for much of that period) and fathers two weeks.
Sweden permits abortion on request up to 18 weeks and offers a total of 480 days of paid parental leave (about 240 days per parent). South Africa liberalized abortion under its 1996 Choice on Termination Act and provides roughly four months’ maternity leave. Saudi women are entitled to only 12 weeks’ fully paid maternity leave (six pre- and six postnatal), and its broader guardianship laws (e.g. requiring a husband’s permission for travel) constrain reproductive autonomy.
- India’s advanced laws often collide against it’s deeply rooted social prejudices. For example, despite the legal bans, India in 2021 still recorded thousands of dowry deaths and domestic-violence incidents. Only about 23% of Indian women participate in the labor force (vs. 73% of men), and one World Bank analysis finds Indian women enjoy only roughly 74.4% of the legal economic rights of men. Other countries face their own gaps: the U.S. and UK, though far richer, still have gender pay and leadership gaps and often under-enforce harassment laws, and South Africa struggles with one of the highest rates of femicide despite its progressive constitution. Saudi legal “reforms” (such as “allowing” women to drive or work more freely) coexist with powerful guardianship norms and reports of women’s-rights activists being silenced.
- Notably, India has pioneered some affirmative measures for instance, it enacted a one-third quota for women’s seats in local governments in the 1990s (which is not enough but was a start) , which remains unmatched in Western democracies and it has begun offering paternity leave and skills training for women. Nevertheless, India still lacks many social supports that facilitate women’s equality: there is no universal childcare or eldercare system (as in Sweden), and corporate gender pay-gap reporting is not mandatory (unlike in the UK) to enforce accountability. These omissions highlight that legal provisions alone do not ensure equality without wider policy structure.
- In sum, India’s legal administration offers a broad set of gender-equality guarantees, constitutional provisions, anti-violence and harassment laws, that largely align with international norms.
- Yet the country lags on key fronts like marital rape remains lawful under current law, multiple personal laws still yield unequal rights for some women, and weak implementation, social resistance, and blunt progress. The global comparison suggests the areas where India can improve. India must now strengthen enforcement and expand supportive programs so that those standards produce real equality.
Implementation and Enforcement Challenges.
India on paper and pen has made significant progress towards women centric laws but still faces serious implementation challenges. These barriers undermine the effectiveness of the said law. Patriarchal stigma even today silences survivors of domestic or sexual violences. In spite of nearly one in three married Indian women reporting abuse in the marital household, cultural pressures and fear of dishonour keep most cases hidden, especially in rural areas.
Official data vastly underestimates true violence; researchers note that social stigma and fear of reprisal “suppress formal complaints,” meaning many rural victims never reach police or courts. In other words, laws alone do little unless survivors feel safe speaking out. Only a complete change in the mindset can break this silence and help women come forward.
Institutions thagt were set up to help these survivors exist on paper, but in reality they often lack funds, staff, or visibility. India’s One-Stop Centres and shelters are constantly under-resourced and understaffed. For example, a 2024 court inspection found many centres with no police officer on site and delays in staff salaries. A leaked NITI Aayog report revealed only about 4% of intended beneficiaries even knew about One-Stop Centres, and just 20% of approved funds were spent. Survivors report insensitive responses; one investigation found police often pressure women to “settle” or return to abusers, forcing them to shop around agencies for help.
In short, instead of fast relief, survivors encounter bureaucracy and indifference. Advocates emphasize that without better funding, staffing and coordination of frontline services (shelters, medical aid, counselling, and legal aid), the promise of protection remains hollow.
India’s justice system also fails survivors through delays and low conviction rates. Courts carry huge backlogs millions of cases so trials drag on for years. Though fast-track courts have been set up, they have not wiped-out delays or guaranteed speedy verdicts. Conviction rates in violence cases are embarrassingly low.
For example, a Bengaluru study found only 1% of 2,200 domestic violence cases (IPC 498A) led to conviction over five years. Nation wide, only about 27% of rape cases end in conviction. In 2021, only 26.5% of crimes against women resulted in convictions, while 95% of cases remained pending. There is a significant gap in evidence collection, witness protection and legal aid slow cases. Without systemic reforms like gender sensitivity training for judges, victim-friendly courtroom procedures, and dedicated support staff – a woman’s legal rights often “exist only on paper”. Implementing these reforms is vital if rights are to become real and not merely symbolic.
India’s police remain overwhelmingly male, which again damages women’s access to justice. As of 2021, only about 10.5% of India’s police officers were women, far below the 33% quota recommended years ago. Not a single state has reached that target. Critical frontline roles like station officers are rarely held by women. Research shows these matters: survivors often don’t report assaults partly because police responses are “typically insensitive, unhelpful, even humiliating”. By contrast, assigning women officers and help-desk desks increases FIRs for gender crimes. Feminists therefore demand quotas for women officers, mandatory gender-sensitivity training for all police, and community policing initiatives. For example, India’s 2013 Verma Committee after the Delhi gang-rape explicitly urged more women on patrol so survivors “feel comfortable” registering complaints. Embracing these changes and enforcing gender-equal hiring would build trust between women and the police.
Even the best laws and schemes falter without money. India’s infamous Nirbhaya Fund (set up after the 2012 Delhi gang-rape) has been largely underutilized. Reporters find that in 2021 only half the allocated money was released, and only 29% actually spent. As a result, promised fast-track courts, help centers and training programs have lagged. Overall, India spends a pittance on women’s safety just ₹30 (≈$0.40) per woman per year, according to Oxfam a sum activists call “grossly inadequate.” Many state and local bodies simply reallocate (or fail to raise) funds for shelters, counselling, mobile safety apps and legal aid. When budgets are empty, shelters close, support centers lack doctors or counsellors, and critical projects stall. Feminist campaigners urge transparent budgeting and participatory planning: involving women’s groups in deciding and tracking spending would help ensure resources actually reach those in need.
On the ground, even progressive laws often go unenforced. India’s Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act (POSH) and the Domestic Violence Act can protect women but only if applied. Human Rights Watch (2020) reports that governments “failed to promote, establish and monitor” the internal complaint committees required under POSH. Many firms treat the rules as a box-ticking exercise, and most women (especially in informal jobs) remain ignorant of their rights. Likewise, protocols in police stations and hospitals (e.g. rape evidence kits and free emergency care mandates) are sometimes ignored. Mere compliance isn’t enough cultural. A change is required. Training and accountability must extend beyond law firms and into the communities. An intersectional approach is also crucial caste, class, religion, disability, and sexuality all influence a woman’s experience, so awareness and protections must address these layers to reach the most vulnerable.
Crucially, the benefits of laws on paper are unevenly distributed in real life. Urban, educated middle-class women generally have more access to legal recourse than rural, poor, tribal or Dalit women. Surveys show rural areas have higher levels of domestic violence and dowry abuse, yet also much lower reporting (due to stigma and isolation). In remote villages, women may never learn of One-Stop Centres or helplines, and local officials may ignore or misuse welfare schemes meant for marginalized groups. For example, the authorities often fail to reach Dalit victims or treat cases involving lower-caste women with urgency. The result is that entrenched oppression continues unchecked in the hardest-hit communities. Advocates insist that future policies be tailored to local needs: equal resources must flow into rural and tribal areas, women’s commissions and NGOs must be staffed at the village level, and outreach must target those cut off by geography or social exclusion.
Conclusion
India’s journey proves that strong laws alone cannot deliver justice unless society, institutions, and attitudes evolve together. Therefore women-centric laws are necessary because the data clearly shows widespread vulnerability, and any just society must protect the vulnerable. But protection must move beyond paper to practice. Misuse should be condemned, yet this small percentage must not overshadow the urgent need for a robust implementation. Police, courts, healthcare, and other support systems must be accessible, and well-equipped. Most importantly, mindsets must change and patriarchy must give way to empathy, dignity, and equality. Only then will rights become realities, and safety become a lived experience for every woman.
About Author
Shreeya, is a penultimate year law student at B.M.S. College of Law, Bengaluru, with a strong interest in Criminal and Family law. Passionate about legal research and reform, she aspires to use her work to bring meaningful change in society and make law more accessible.
References
https://sprf.in/crimes-against-women-in-india-trends-challenges-and-policy-responses/
https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/6/59875.pdf
https://www.changeincontent.com/india-justice-report-2025/
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/india
https://www.lexisnexis.in/blogs/laws-for-women-in-india/
https://glslawjournal.in/index.php/glslawjournal/article/view/191
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2116557
https://blog.ipleaders.in/women-centric-laws-india-beneficial-detrimental/
https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/from-policy-to-practice-the-next-chapter-in-posh-compliance-in-india
https://www.lexisnexis.in/blogs/laws-for-women-in-india/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/women-centric-laws-india-beneficial-detrimental/
https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/ncrb-report-2023
https://theiashub.com/free-resources/mains-marks-booster/legal-protection-for-women-in-india-laws-initiatives-impact
https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/women-protection-laws-in-India
https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publication/cso_social_statices_division/Constitutional&Legal_Rights.pdf, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2178389
https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/1826961
https://clp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Legal-needs-in-Rural-India-conference-paper-Sunil-Chauhan.pdf
https://www.lawjournal.info/article/156/5-1-5-797.pdf
https://www.landesa.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Fog-of-Entitlement-Women-and-Land-in-India-261-Kelkar.pdf
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/global-gender-gap-report-2025
Very nice informative
Informative.
Best wishes for a bright future shreeya.