India is described as having some of the strongest laws meant to protect women and children from violence. Its constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, criminal laws covering sexual and gender-based offences, especially statutes such as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and procedural safeguards for victims all point to a serious legal commitment to fighting gender-based violence. Yet violence persists, and that is not simply because a law is missing. The harder question is whether the legal system lets a survivor actually use that law safely, promptly, and with dignity. This is where India's framework struggles most: the gap between rights guaranteed on paper and justice actually experienced on the ground. The law has evolved, but implementation remains the weak point.

A major transition came with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code on July 1, 2024. The BNS keeps a dedicated chapter on offences against women and children, including sexual offences. Section 63 defines rape and recognises situations involving lack of consent, coercion, and an inability to communicate consent. Similarly, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) includes provisions on victim compensation, victim treatment, and witness protection. Sections 396, 397, and 398 create a statutory framework for victim compensation schemes, victim treatment, and witness protection, respectively. These provisions matter. They show the legal system recognises that justice should not end with identifying and punishing an offender. But legislation alone cannot guarantee justice. A survivor's experience begins well before a judgment is delivered. It involves reporting the incident, dealing with police officers, undergoing a medical examination, giving statements, facing investigation, appearing in court, and waiting for proceedings to conclude. At every stage, institutional sensitivity and effective implementation decide whether the law becomes a source of protection or yet another source of trauma.

“If the law promises justice, why does seeking it so often become another source of trauma?”

The first barrier: reporting violence. For many survivors, approaching the police is itself a highly vulnerable act, and fear of social stigma, retaliation, economic dependence, family pressure, and disbelief can all discourage reporting. Where the accused is an intimate partner, relative, or someone the survivor knows, the decision becomes even harder to imagine. Even after all, when a survivor decides to come forward, the quality of institutional response matters the most. A delayed or harsh response can discourage cooperation with the investigation and cause deeper distrust in the justice system. A law may look strong on paper, but if the institutions do not consistently follow it, the survivors may not be able to access justice effectively, and the justice process becomes another source of trauma

One of the gravest concerns is secondary victimisation: it is the hardest time when survivors suffer additional psychological, social, or institutional harm as a result of their interaction with the justice process. Repeated questioning, insensitive language, unnecessary exposure of personal details, hostile courtroom experiences, and drawn-out proceedings can make the legal process itself traumatic. The Supreme Court has recognised this problem in cases of sexual offences against children, noting that earlier procedures were not child-friendly and could cause secondary victimisation. Having procedural safeguards is only a first step. But consistent implementation is what actually determines whether they protect survivors. Trauma cannot be treated as irrelevant to justice. The criminal process focuses heavily on physical evidence, consistency of testimony, and procedural timelines. These are most important for a fair trial. But survivors of violence do not always respond to trauma in predictable ways. A survivor may delay disclosure. Memory may be fragmented. Unfortunately, the person may remain in contact with the perpetrator due to economic, familial, or social circumstances. None of these realities should automatically be read through the lens of simple assumptions about credibility. The law must preserve the accused's right to a fair trial while also ensuring survivors are not judged against stereotypes of how a "genuine" victim is expected to behave. This indicates a need for better training not only of police officers, but also of prosecutors, medical professionals, lawyers, and all others who interact with survivors; most importantly, society plays a huge role, as it can support victims in a dignified manner.

Compensation and protection must become accessible rights. The BNSS provisions on victim compensation and witness protection matter because justice cannot be reduced to conviction alone. A survivor may need medical treatment, psychological support, rehabilitation, financial help, and protection from intimidation. Yet a statutory process has limited value if the survivor does not know the remedy exists, cannot navigate the procedure to access it, or receives help only after prolonged delay. A truly survivor-centred system therefore requires accessibility. Information about compensation, legal assistance, legal awareness, protection mechanisms, and available support should be communicated in clear and understandable language. Legal aid should not merely exist as a formal institution; it should be able to reach survivors at the earliest stage of the process. Also, there should be compulsory awareness provided to citizens through various means, including online platforms, which are accessible to every citizen in every corner of India.

The problem is also institutional, not merely legal. People in general often think that gender-based violence can be solved mainly by giving offenders harsher punishments. Criminal laws are necessary, but punishment alone cannot address the structural causes of violence or the barriers that survivors face, which not only affects her psychologically; rather, it gives her life long hidden trauma which she'll need to carry throughout her life. The law often focuses on the external or physical harms that are visible, but that incident creates deep shock which affects her day-to-day life, which makes her life a living hell. The deeper problem is institutional. Police stations must be equipped to respond sensitively and efficiently. Medical systems must preserve both dignity and evidence. Prosecutors must be adequately trained. Courts must minimise unnecessary delays and protect survivors from avoidable exposure. Legal aid systems must be accessible. Witness protection must actually function. Without institutional accountability, even well-drafted legislation can remain underused. India therefore needs to move beyond asking whether it has enacted enough laws. The more meaningful question is whether justice works for the person who has to use it.

A survivor-centred approach would involve at least five priorities.

First, institutional training should become continuous and specialised rather than limited to occasional programmes.

Second, investigation and prosecution mechanisms must be adequately resourced and monitored for compliance with procedural safeguards.

Third, psychological and legal support should be integrated into the justice process rather than treated as optional assistance.

Fourth, victim compensation and witness protection must be accessible, timely, and understandable.

Finally, institutions should develop ways of measuring survivor experience, not merely counting FIRs, arrests, and convictions. A justice system should be evaluated not only by how many cases it processes, but also by whether survivors were treated with dignity throughout that process.

India's legal framework has undoubtedly evolved. The problem therefore cannot simply be described as an absence of law. The more uncomfortable reality is that a right that cannot be safely accessed is incomplete. For survivors of gender-based violence, justice is not limited to the final verdict. The ultimate measure of a legal system is not how impressive its statutes appear on paper, but whether a person who has suffered violence can enter that system without being made to suffer again. Justice must not merely punish violence. It must ensure that the pursuit of justice does not become another form of harm.