The Delhi High Court will announce its judgment on the petitions seeking to criminalise marital rape. Here’s all you need to know about the case.
The Delhi High Court, which is hearing a batch of petitions seeking to criminalise marital rape, will pronounce its judgment on Wednesday, May 11. The petitions are challenging the exception to the rape law under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Exception 2 of IPC Section 375 (rape) doesn’t consider forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, who is not under 15 years of age, as rape. In simple words, Exception 2 of Section 375 decriminalises marital rape or mandates that forced sexual intercourse by a man with his wife in a marriage is not rape.
A bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar will pronounce the verdict in the four pleas seeking to criminalise forced sex in a marriage, or marital rape.
WHO ARE THE PETITIONERS
The four petitions were filed by the RIT foundation in 2015, the All India Demoractic Women’s Association (AIDWA) in 2017, Khushboo Saifi, a marital rape survivor, in 2017, and one by a man accused of rape by his wife.
At least three petitions by men’s rights organisations have also been filed before the Delhi High Court against the criminalisation of marital rape on various grounds, including allegations of false cases, potential for misuse, and damage to marital relationship and family.
One intervention plea also raised arguments for a gender-neutral definition of rape to ensure that men are not “unfairly targeted”.
Hearing in the RIT foundation’s case began in 2015, with the Delhi High Court issuing a notice to the Centre and Delhi government. In 2016, the Centre filed an affidavit taking the stand that marital rape cannot be criminalised as it would have a negative impact on Indian society. The lawyer for the RIT foundation, Colin Gonsalves, had raised the violation of the right to dignity. The case remained adjourned for over three years and the hearing finally resumed in December 2021.
WHAT IS THE PETITIONERS’ TAKE
The petitioners in the case have sought to strike down the exception to the rape law. The petitioners have argued that the provision, in addition to violation of the right to dignity, also directly violates a woman’s right to privacy, choice and bodily autonomy as recognised by the Supreme Court in the right to privacy judgment.
Besides, it creates an “irrational classification” since a married woman is denied the basic right to say ‘no’, a right that is available to an unmarried or separated woman.
It was also argued that the exception stems from patriarchal and Victorian understanding of the law of coverture, which says that a woman becomes the property of her husband after marriage, and that there is “implied consent” that comes with marriage.
WHAT IS THE CENTRE’S TAKE
In 2017, the Centre filed an affidavit opposing the pleas submitted by petitioners, stating that marital rape cannot be made a criminal offence as it could become an example that may “destabilise the institution of marriage” and become an easy tool for harassing husbands.
