On March 8, 2025, a 20-year-old man was allegedly raped by his neighbour in the Narayanganj District of Bangladesh. Following this heinous incident, the victim’s mother filed a case against the accused. However, the applicable Penal Code, 1860 (‘the Code’) – a by-product of the colonial legal system still enforced in Bangladesh – does not recognize the rape of a male as a punishable offence, thus the case was filed as sodomy under Section 377 of the Code. This appalling incident is not an isolated event; rather, it echoes the glaring gap in the legal framework of Bangladesh, which fails to recognize the sexual crimes committed against a man.

Legal Ambiguities

Section 375 of the Code recognizes the act of engaging in sexual intercourse with a “woman” against her will or without her consent as the crime of rape. This provision fails to address rape against men and transgender persons, and also does not recognise marital rape.

In 2021, a writ petition was filed in the High Court Division to amend Section 375 by substituting the word “woman” with “persons” to criminalize sexual offenses committed against any gender. Consequently, in 2022, the High Court Division issued a rule addressing the gender inequality in rape laws asking to amend Section 375. The Bench directed the Secretariats to the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Inspector General of Police to respond within the following four weeks. Due to the delay in such reports, the directives are yet to be put into action.

Although the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000  (‘the Act’) enables male children under the age of 16 to seek remedy, adult male rape cases are left unsettled. Thus, in Bangladesh, the only existing recourse to a male victim is available under Section 377 of the Code which criminalizes carnal intercourse against a man, a woman, or any animal as “unnatural offences”. Therefore, because the fundamental provision concerning rape does not include male victims, their cases have been framed as “sodomy” which significantly dismisses the severity of the crime committed against them.

Moreover, Section 377 embodies the essence of draconian laws that do not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual acts of sexual acts so long as it has been committed “against the order of nature”. It is highly unfortunate that what constitutes “against the order of nature” has always been prone to moral and religious interpretations, perpetuating stigmatization and discrimination of specific victim groups. For instance, this provision was initially introduced in the British period to condemn homosexuality. Thus, the sheer terminological distinction between ‘rape’ and ‘sodomy’ reflects the broader bias which minimises a male victim’s experience of specific sexual acts.

It further diminishes the gravity of the crime committed. The punishment for committing “unnatural offences” under Section 377 of the Code can range from 10 years to life imprisonment, whereas the Act in Section 9(1) prescribes the death penalty or life imprisonment as punishment for the crime of rape committed against women and children under Section 375 of the Code.

Still a Taboo?

The diabolical status of the legal framework concerning rape has been further exacerbated by the societal stigma associated with masculinity, rape, and victimhood. The stereotypical notion that men cannot be violated against their will due to the biological superiority of a “male body” has routinely met with law enforcement agency’s disbelief in those rarely reported cases. The contradiction between the biological construct of the ‘male’ body and what is perceived as the societal expectation of ‘masculinity’ has suppressed the victims from disclosing their vulnerability and violation. This stigmatisation of males, whose autonomy and manhood can be stripped by being sexually assaulted, has isolated these victims from seeking justice.

Since the Code restricts male rape victims from identifying as legally defined ‘victim groups’, there are no targeted services, shelters, or aid available for them either.

Following the recent spike in rape incidents in Bangladesh, the interim government has approved a draft ordinance for a quicker trial process in these cases. However, a gender-neutral definition of ‘rape’ to strengthen Bangladesh’s criminal justice system beyond the ‘gendered pronouns’ is still anticipated.