Become woman to evade law

In a recent conversation, someone argued that the Indian judiciary is biased—especially against men in cases of rape, molestation, and dowry. Their claim was: "A woman can simply accuse, and the man is presumed guilty." It's a provocative stance, one echoed often in urban circles and internet forums. But is it true? And more importantly, is it fair to say so in the context of Indian society?

Here's how I responded. Not as a legal expert, but as a student of law, psychology, and history—someone who tries to see things in context rather than isolation.

Bias Isn't Always Injustice
If we were in a truly equal society—where women and men had similar lived experiences, opportunities, and safety—then yes, equal legal treatment would be the baseline. But India is not that society.

This is a country where countless women have been burned for dowry, beaten into submission, raped and silenced, and continue to face systemic harassment. Our collective memory and legal structure cannot pretend this never happened. The so-called "bias" is often a corrective mechanism, not an unfair advantage.

Laws must not only uphold justice, but acknowledge history. In a land where injustice has been disproportionately gendered, some degree of legal sensitivity—what some label "bias"—is not just acceptable, it's necessary.

The Myth of the 'False Allegation Epidemic'
Another point raised in the conversation was: "Most women lie about rape or harassment." This notion is not only statistically untrue, but also deeply harmful.

Why would a woman lie in a society that punishes her for speaking up? A woman in India who reports rape risks being shamed, blamed, disowned, or even harmed. The trauma of surviving rape is often compounded by the trauma of reporting it. In such a scenario, even one woman speaking out takes immense courage.

Of course, false cases exist. But they are exceptions. Misuse of law in a few urban elite cases should not dictate national policy for the majority who are still silenced, vulnerable, and invisible.

Law Mirrors Society, Not the Other Way Around
A key difference between me and my peer's view was philosophical. He said, "Law exists to shape society." But I believe—and legal history supports this—that law is a product of society first. It evolves from society's needs, its wounds, and its aspirations.

We cannot one day decide that "now we are all equal" and reset the legal framework. That is not justice—that is neglect. Equality must be earned by undoing the damages of inequality, not by ignoring them.

Justice Is Hard—but Not Impossible
My peer argued that it's hard to prove innocence in such cases. But I've seen the opposite in action. In my law internship, I've witnessed senior lawyers win cases that seemed stacked against them. They proved innocence not by luck, but by skill, strategy, and relentless effort.

Which brings me to an unpopular opinion: a client losing a case isn't always due to a weak case—it may be a weak lawyer. The system is imperfect, yes. But it is navigable, if you know how.

In Conclusion: Law, Empathy, and Responsibility
Yes, our legal system can be flawed. Yes, misuse exists. But let's not allow a few exceptions to blind us to the reality of the many. Let's not confuse protection with privilege. Let's understand that what may feel like bias to a few is often justice long overdue for the majority.

We are not just studying law to memorize sections and file petitions—we are here to understand society and help it heal. And healing sometimes begins by acknowledging who's been bleeding the longest.

I'm not the wisest voice in the room. But I do believe this: justice is not neutrality—it is context-aware fairness. And in India, that context still demands that our laws protect the vulnerable, even if it sometimes feels like they're tipping the scale.