By Anuradha Gandhi and Surbhi Gandotra
Introduction
On July 11, 2025, the Indian institute of Management, Calcutta (IIM-C), one of the most prestigious educational institutions, came into a national spotlight following the allegations of rape involving students on campus. The case not only raise serious questions about campus safety but also brought to the light the challenges and the complexities faced by the survivor of the assault seeking justice within the Indian legal system.
The IIM Calcutta Incident: Facts and Controversies
A female student lodged a police complaint alleging rape by another student at the boy’s hostel in IIM Calcutta. According to the survivor’s complaint, she was called to the hostel under the guise of a counselling session, given a drink suspected to be spiked with sedatives and lost consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, she realised she had been sexually assaulted.[1]
Several developments complicated the legal proceedings:[2]
- The survivor’s initial medical examination was conducted and reportedly supported her claim.[3]
- Forensic evidences, the CCTV footage and used condoms were recovered from the campus.[4]
- The accused initially admitted the purchasing of sleeping pills and mixing them to the survivor’s drink.
- The survivor became incommunicado, missing two court appearances, and her father publically denied on July 12, 2025, that any rape or torture had occurred, claiming instead she had suffered injuries from an accident.
- The accused was granted interim bail on July 19, 2025, in part because the survivor had not yet recorded her confidential statement or completed medico-legal formalities, and the case showed discrepancies between statements of the parties involved.
The Kolkata Police formed a nine-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter further. The conflicting accounts and absence of the survivor for crucial legal processes created significant hurdles, underlining recurring challenges in prosecuting sexual assault cases in India.
Legal Framework Governing Rape in India
Statutory Provisions:
The legal definition of rape is set out in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and now under Section 63 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Rape is broadly defined to include not only penile-vaginal penetration but also any form of sexual penetration without consent, under duress, intimidation, intoxication, or if the victim is under 18 years of age. These following elements constitute rape under the Indian law:
- Physical penetration, including with objects or bodily parts, without the woman’s consent.
- Consent obtained through coercion, false pretences, incapacity, or intoxication is not considered valid consent.
- Sexual acts with girls under the age of 18 are considered statutory rape, irrespective of consent.
Section 376 of the IPC and now Section 64 of the BNS prescribes punishments. The minimum term for rape is ten year’s rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to life imprisonment, along with fines. Aggravated cases, such as rape causing death or persistent vegetative state, attract harsher sentences, including the death penalty.[5]
Investigative and Judicial Process[6]
Upon registration of an FIR, police are mandated to collect all possible evidence, ensure the survivor undergoes prompt medical examination, and record statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and now under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The survivor’s statement is pivotal but must be handled sensitively to prevent traumatization.
Consent and the Burden of Proof[7]
India’s rape laws recognize that consent given under the influence of substances or through deceit does not absolve the accused. Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act shifts the burden of proof regarding consent to the accused once penetration is proved and the victim testifies to lack of consent.
Challenges in Prosecution: the Iim-C Case as a Microcosm
The IIM-C Case Brings to Light Several Common Obstacles:
- Survivor Withdrawal and Social Pressures
The survivor’s withdrawal and her father’s public denial reflected the immense societal pressures victims face, the victim’s family also did not hire any counsel to represent them in the case, unlike the R.G. Kar rape-murder case. This is not uncommon, given the social stigma, victim-blaming, and threat of retaliation that often accompany reporting sexual assault in India. Legal reforms have attempted to secure survivor protection and privacy, but social mores remain a barrier.[8] - Medical and Forensic Evidence
In the IIM-C case, conflicting versions regarding medical examination and the need for survivor consent to proceed with certain forensic tests exemplify how crucial medical evidence is often contested or delayed. This gap can alter the outcomes in a sexual assault case, especially where the survivor is unable or unwilling to testify. - Discrepancies and Media Coverage[9]
Media scrutiny/trial can both help and harm. While it raises awareness and accountability, premature reporting may impact the investigation, prejudice public opinion, and jeopardize fair trial, the IIM-C case saw complete coverage and public debate, with leaks of information, and conflicting narratives presented before the press.
Landmark Judgments Shaping India’s Rape Jurisprudence
Mathura Rape Case (Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, 1979)[10]
With the escalation in crime over the decades, there have been several amendments in the anti-rape laws. The infamous Mathura case created a nationwide uproar which eventually led to The Criminal Law Amendment Act Of 1983.
A tribal girl was raped in police custody, but the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, citing the absence of injuries as evidence of “consent.” Widespread public protests ensued, compelling amendments in 1983 to the rape laws to better define consent and accountability for custodial rape.
2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case
In 2012, the gruesome Delhi rape case shook the whole country with the brutal gang rape of a young woman who was named Nirbhaya by media for not revealing her identity. In the aftermath of the horrific Delhi gang rape and murder case, the Indian government established the JS Verma Committee to suggest reforms in sexual assault laws to provide for quicker trial, broadened the definition of rape and enhanced punishment for criminals accused of committing sexual assault against women, which culminated into the enactment of The Criminal Amendment Act, 2013[11]
Need For the Criminal Amendment Act, 2018[12]
Despite progressive changes in India’s anti-rape laws, the situation on the ground remained deeply troubling. Nearly six years after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, two horrific incidents, the Unnao and Kathua rape cases were reported:
In 2017, a 17-year-old girl was kidnapped and raped by a former BJP MLA, along with his brother and others. The victim’s father was arrested in a separate arms case, during which he was allegedly beaten in custody and later died. The victim herself was later seriously injured in a suspicious car accident that also claimed the lives of her two aunts. Due to the gravity of the case, the Supreme Court transferred all related proceedings from Lucknow to Delhi. Ultimately, the accused was convicted by the Delhi High Court and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with an order to pay ₹25 lakh in compensation to the victim.[13]
In 2018, the Unnao case coincided with the Kathua rape case, where an 8-year-old girl from a Muslim community in Jammu & Kashmir was abducted, raped over several days by six men, and then murdered. The communal identities of the victim and accused turned the case into a politically charged issue, with some groups supporting the accused based on religious grounds. To ensure a fair trial, the Supreme Court transferred the case to Punjab, where six out of seven accused were convicted.[14]
These brutal incidents triggered nationwide protests and public outrage, which led to increased pressure on the government to strengthen laws against sexual violence. As a result, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 was passed, introducing stricter punishments for such heinous crimes.
Recent Controversies and Supreme Court Interventions
- In 2025, the Supreme Court stayed a controversial Allahabad High Court judgment that had minimized certain acts as not constituting “attempt to rape,” emphasizing zero tolerance for judicial insensitivity in such matters.[15]
- Challenges to the exception for marital rape remain under consideration in the Supreme Court, with a split verdict in the Delhi High Court highlighting the deeply divisive opinions on spousal immunity from prosecution.
Societal and Legal Reform: Pathways Forward
Importance of Survivor-Centric Approaches
For sexual assault survivors, legal redress must not become a second ordeal. Advanced procedures for medical examination, simplified and non-intimidating recording of evidence, and privacy guarantees are essential. Courts have held that a survivor’s testimony, if credible, can be the basis for conviction even in the absence of medical evidence.
Strengthening Institutional Accountability
Educational institutions like IIM-C have a responsibility to ensure a safe environment, expedite internal investigations, and fully cooperate with law enforcement. The formation of special committees, rapid response, and survivor counselling are mandatory.
The Broader Message
The IIM- Calcutta case highlights the complex balance institutions must maintain between due process and student safety. It underscores the need for:
- Clear policies on handling sexual misconduct
- Zero tolerance for breaches of safety and dignity.
Institutions must continuously evolve their frameworks to ensure that education is pursued without fear, and that justice and safety should not be compromised.
Legislative Amendments and Societal Change
India’s legislative journey, from the Mathura case to the present, reflects incremental progress, but societal change is slower.
Conclusion
The IIM Calcutta case is the representation of the tensions and deficits in India’s response to rape, caught between rapidly evolving laws and persistent social prejudices. Laws now exist on paper, supported by landmark court judgments and survivor-centric reforms, but the efficacy of their enforcement hinges on societal support and institutional accountability.
While the precise facts, and potential outcomes, of the IIM Calcutta case may remain hidden in controversy due to withdrawal and conflicting narratives, it serves as a crucial reminder of why both law and society must evolve not only to punish sexual violence, but also to ensure that survivors are neither silenced nor re-traumatized by the system. A future where survivors can expect swift, sensitive, and impartial justice remains an aspiration for India, but one that demands continued vigilance and reform.
[4] ibid
[5]Section 64 of BNS: Punishment for rape: Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
[6] Section 183: Recording of confessions and statements of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita : Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trail.
[7] Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act: the presumption of absence of consent in rape cases. Specifically, it states that if sexual intercourse with the accused is proven and the victim states in court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.
[8] https://www.benefitnews24.com/crime/state-fails-to-convince-iimc-victim-experts/16861
[9] ibid
[10] https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/114584494/?big=3&formInput=intercourse%20sexual
[11] https://www.iitk.ac.in/wc/data/TheCriminalLaw.pdf
[12] https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/An-Extensive-study-of-Rape-Laws-in-India
[13] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103237216/
[14] Mohd. Akhtar vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 7 May, 2018
[15] https://www.dailypioneer.com/uploads/2025/epaper/march/lucknow-english-edition-2025-03-27.pdf