. 04/10/2024 3:37 PM
In a significant legal development, the Union government has submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court defending the marital rape exception in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This affidavit comes amid ongoing hearings challenging the constitutional validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, which currently exempts husbands from being prosecuted for raping their wives. The government argues that removing this exception would threaten the institution of marriage and that the issue requires a nuanced understanding of marital relationships.
Impact on Marriage:
The Centre contends that labeling non-consensual acts between spouses as "rape" would lead to serious disturbances in marital relationships. It asserts that the demographics and nature of marriage are unique, emphasizing the need for a distinct legal framework that acknowledges the complexities of conjugal relationships.
Judicial Restraint:
The affidavit urges the Supreme Court to exercise judicial restraint, deferring to Parliament's wisdom on the matter. The government emphasizes that Parliament has carefully weighed the socio-economic and cultural aspects before deciding to retain the marital rape exception, thus highlighting the legislature's role in regulating marital relations.
Concerns Over Criminalization:
The government argues that invoking stringent penal provisions in marital settings would be "excessively harsh" and "disproportionate." It warns of the potential misuse of the law if marital rape were criminalized, citing challenges in proving consent within marriage. The affidavit emphasizes that both parties in a marriage have rights to privacy and dignity, but the consequences of breaches of consent should differ from those involving non-marital relationships.
Existing Legal Framework:
The Centre points out that existing laws, such as Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 498A of the IPC, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, adequately address violations of consent within marriage. It maintains that these provisions represent a balanced approach to protecting women's rights while considering the unique nature of marital relationships.
Distinction Between Relationships:
The government makes a crucial distinction between conjugal relationships and those involving strangers, asserting that there exists a continuing expectation of sexual access between spouses. This expectation, according to the Centre, justifies a different legal treatment of non-consensual acts within marriage compared to those committed by strangers.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud is currently examining a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the marital rape exception. This includes a split verdict from the Delhi High Court, where one judge found the exception "morally repugnant," while the other ruled in favor of its validity. The Supreme Court's ruling could have far-reaching implications for women's rights and marital relationships in India.
The government's affidavit acknowledges the serious concerns surrounding marital rape under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, privacy, and dignity. However, it argues that these rights require different legal treatment within the confines of marriage. By emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach, the Centre highlights the complexity of consent within marital relationships and the potential consequences of conflating it with non-consensual acts outside marriage.
The government underscores that Parliament had deliberately chosen to retain the marital rape exception despite recommendations from the Justice JS Verma Committee in 2013, which had advocated for its removal following the 2012 Delhi gang rape incident. By emphasizing the legislative choice, the Centre calls for the Supreme Court to respect Parliament's discretion on sensitive social issues.
As the Supreme Court deliberates the Centre's position on the marital rape exception, the outcome of this case will have significant implications for the legal recognition of consent within marriage and the protection of women's rights in India. The case not only underscores the complexities surrounding marital relationships but also reflects the broader societal challenges in reconciling traditional values with contemporary understandings of gender equality and individual rights. The debate continues to evolve as public awareness and discourse on women's rights within marriage gain momentum, setting the stage for future legislative and judicial actions.
