It was originally an Ordinance promulgated by the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, on 3 February 2013, in light of the protests in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case.
Six days after the incident, on 22 December 2012, the central government appointed a judicial committee headed by J. S. Verma, a former Judge of Supreme Court, to suggest amendments to criminal law to sternly deal with sexual assault cases.
The Committee submitted its report within 29 days, on 23 January 2013, supposedly after considering the 80,000 suggestions and petitions received by them during that same period from the public in general and particularly from jurists, lawyers, NGOs and women's groups.
Major suggestions of the report included the need to review AFSPA in conflict areas, maximum punishment for rape as life imprisonment and not death penalty, clear ambiguity over control of Delhi Police etc.
[11][12] The Cabinet Ministers on 1 February 2013 approved for bringing an ordinance, for giving effect to the changes in law as suggested by the Verma Committee Report.
The law has been severely criticized for being gender biased and giving women the legal authority to commit exactly the same crimes (against which they seek protection) against men with impunity.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013 has been strongly criticised by several human rights and women's rights organisations for not including certain suggestions recommended by the Verma Committee Report like, marital rape, reduction of age of consent[failed verification], amending Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act so that no sanction is needed for prosecuting an armed force personnel accused of a crime against woman.
In such cases, crucial evidence is lost, which results in botched up investigations, as well as acquittals, or convictions not on the offenses of rape, besides enhancing confidence or rapists getting away with their crime.
[32] The amendment, which also does not grant remissions to rape convicts serving life imprisonment, has not worked for cases which are disposed before the amendment was enacted and enforced - in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case which took place during the 2002 Gujarat riots, the rape convicts were erroneously granted parole several times and remission on 15 August 2022, where they threatened the victims and witnesses.
[35] Additionally, the amendment does not change the general attitudes towards victims, as many view that women are to be blamed for rape, when in fact, the culprits are to be held responsible.
[37] For such decisions, criticism of the judiciary is considered as contempt of court, due to an aristocratic mindset and superiority of judges, that has been in carried forward after Independence.