+91 9004418746enquiry.aashah@gmail.com
+91 9004078746aashahs.ias@gmail.com

13 February 2017 Question Bank


13th FEBRUARY 2017


(1 Question)

Answer questions in NOT MORE than 200 words each. Content of the answer is more important than its length.

Links are provided for reference. You can also use the Internet fruitfully to further enhance and strengthen your answers.




1.     Should India set up a sex offenders registry as suggested recently? Critically evaluate this proposal.


Sex Offender registry worldwide

  • Minister for Women and Child Development Maneka Gandhi has once again reiterated the need to set up anational sex offender registryafter a convicted sex offender allegedly confessed to raping hundreds of girls for over 10 years in New Delhi.
  • These registries are not a novel suggestion. They have been operational in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and a few other English-speaking countries for more than a decade.
  • Sex offender registration laws typically require offenders convicted of a sexual offence to periodically check in with law enforcement agencies, such as the police, informing them about where they are residing, their place of employment, and provide details of their physical description.
  • In addition, these laws often place severe restrictions on where a previously convicted sex offender can reside and work.
  • This in theory is meant to aid officials to track and monitor former sex offenders.
  • The laws in the U.S. and South Korea go even further. They allow the public to access these records so that the community may be aware of a sex offender in their locality.
  • This data is generally accessed through websites that will provide you the name, physical description, address, and photo of all the sexual offenders near you.
  • Ms. Gandhi has vouched for a similar system in India where the public can have access to such records.

Impact on crimes

  • While sex offender registration laws and public access to these records create a sense of security to parents and residents, they have failed in making any significant difference in sex crimes.
  • Sometimes they create more harm than good. Even in the U.S., where stringent registration laws with public access have been around for over 30 years, several independent studies arrive at the same conclusion: that these registers are simply not reducing sex crimes.
  • A comprehensive study conducted by J.J. Prescott and J.E. Rockoff in 2010 conclude that although basic registration laws through which officials may track former offenders shows a marginal reduction in recidivism (namely, reoffending) by 1.1%, public notification laws, through which the public have full access to this data, undo this effect and instead result in an actual increase in reoffending. J.J. Prescott and J.E. Rockoff in their report note that, "notification laws may harden registered sex offenders, however, making them more likely to commit additional sex offences, perhaps because criminal behaviour is relatively more attractive for registered sex offenders living under a notification regime."
  • The failure of these registries to show any empirical evidence of reducing crimes or reducing recidivism is significant while comparing the tremendous associated costs and damage they impose on law officials and former convicts.
  • Their status as former sex offenders has the effect of stigmatising them for life, rendering reformation and a dignified life after prison impossible.
  • A troubling aspect of Ms. Gandhi's suggestion is that she wants to include even juveniles and persons standing on trial for sexual offences to be on the register.
  • The hasty proposal to include even undertrial persons on the register ignores a basic consideration for civil rights of an accused person and the disproportionate impact it would have on their lives while only being accused of an offence.
  • Similarly, the proposal to put children on a sex offender register displays a complete lack of understanding of their rights under the Constitution and our international obligations under theUN Convention for the Rights of the Child(UNCRC).

Framing sexual offences:

  • More importantly, before proposing a sex offender registry it is significant to have a look at how our sexual offences have been framed.
  • At present, the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 criminalises consensual sexual intercourse with minors and between minors. Two 17-year-olds who have consensual sexual intercourse with each other can be imprisoned for a minimum term of seven years under this law if convicted. A brieflook at the cases registered under POCSO Actis sufficient to tell us that most special courts are now barraged with romantic cases instigated through complaints filed by objecting parents. In the state of the current law, a person could possibly face the consequences of being on the register for a lifetime for having a consensual sexual relationship.

Pendency and rate of conviction:

  • To effectively tackle the incidence of sexual offences will require a hard look at our own institutional failure in tackling these cases. The rate of conviction for the offence of rape is at an abysmal 29% and worse still, the rate of pendency for rape cases is at a staggering 86.2% (National Crime Records Bureau, 2015).
  • With a poor conviction rate and a majority of cases still pending before courts, how would a register aid in preventing sexual offences by former convicts?


  • In the background of weak investigative and institutional machinery and overwhelming evidence showing that these sex offenders registries simply don't work, Ms. Gandhi's suggestion that the recent attacks in Delhi could have been prevented if a national sex offender registry had been implemented seems far-fetched and unrealistic.
  • The Delhi attacks expose the glaring gaps in our existing systems that need to be urgently addressed before we jump to formulating new solutions.


Back to Top