The High Court on Sunday questioned legality of the gender biased form of the Section 375 of the Penal Code 1860 that describes the definition of rape by a man.
The court issued a rule upon the concerned bodies of the government to explain as to why the Section 375 of the Penal Code 1860 shall not be declared illegal as it covers instances of rape of a woman by a man only, and as it does not take into account non-consensual sexual assault inflicted on a woman by a woman, on a man by a woman, on a man by another man, on transgender by another transgender or a man or woman.
It also wanted to know as to why the respondents shall not be directed to bring necessary amendments in the Section to transfer it to a non-biased form.
Law Secretary, Home Secretary, and Inspector General of Police have been asked to comply with the order.
The High Court bench of Justice Md Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Khizir Hayat passed the order after hearing a writ petition filed in this regard.
Dr Soumen Bhowmick, a social worker, Tasmia Nuhaiya Ahmed, a Supreme Court lawyer, and Dr SM Masum Billah, director of human rights organisation 'Empowerment through Law of the Common People', filed the petition on January 14 in 2021 as a public interest litigation.
According to the Section 375, “A man is said to commit ‘rape’ who except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the five following descriptions: Firstly- Against her will, Secondly- Without her consent, Thirdly- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death, or of hurt.”
“Fourthly- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married and Fifthly- With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.”
The petition said, “The section 375 of the Penal Code only covers instances of rape of a woman by a man. It does not take into account non-consensual sexual assault inflicted on a woman by a woman, on a man by a woman, on a man by another man, on transgender by another transgender or a man or woman.”
Lawyer Tapas Kanti Baul appeared in the hearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, while Deputy Attorney General Bepul Bagmar represented the state.
