What is the Legal Provision Under Challenge?
Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC: This provision states that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, provided she is over 18, does not constitute rape.
It also includes Exception 2 of Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which supersedes the IPC provision.
What Rights Does It Infringe Upon ?
Right to Equality: Article 14 is violated as it creates different classes of victims, denying married women protections extended to unmarried women.
Right to Non-Discrimination: Article 15(1) is infringed as it disadvantages married women.
Right to Privacy and Bodily Integrity: Article 21 is violated, as affirmed in the K.S. Puttaswamy case, which emphasizes individual autonomy over one’s body.
What Are the Contentions Advanced by Stakeholders ?
Petitioners argue that the provision is unconstitutional and rooted in outdated patriarchy.
The government contends that criminalizing marital rape could undermine the institution of marriage and lead to false allegations.
What is the ‘Doctrine of Coverture’ in English Common Law?
The doctrine posits that a married woman’s legal identity is merged with that of her husband, resulting in the suspension of her legal autonomy.
It originates from English common law, suggesting that marriage created a single legal entity where the husband holds authority.
What Was the Split Verdict Issued by the Delhi High Court in 2022?
Justice Rajiv Shakdher: Deemed the MRE unconstitutional, stating it violates bodily autonomy and is steeped in patriarchy, suggesting that forced sex in marriage should also be classified as rape.
Justice C. Hari Shankar: Argued that sexual relations within marriage create a legitimate expectation of consent, making the MRE legally valid.
He believed that labeling a husband as a rapist would undermine the institution of marriage.
The split verdict led petitioners to approach the Supreme Court for a unified decision, acknowledging that intimate partner violence can constitute rape.
COMMENTS