The Supreme court on March 22 agreed to hear on 9 May a series of petitions seeking to criminalize marital rape.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising raised the case before a three-judge penal chaired by chief justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala on March 21st, 2023 which could not be heard due to Justice Pardiwala’s absence.
She informed the committee that the order of discussion and the joint statement on the case were ready.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said it would take a day and a half to present its case.
On January 16, the court of appeals asked the center to respond to a series of inquiries regarding the criminalization of marital rape. It is also asking all parties to submit written comments by March 3.
There are three sets of petitions :
1.)By a Karnataka man who is being tried for marital rape. The top court had on July 20, 2022, stayed the verdict of the Karnataka High court that put the man on trial for allegedly raping his wife ignoring exception two to section 375 of the Indian penal code that treated such cases as an exception to rape.
2). The second set of petitions arose out of appeals filed against a split verdict delivered by the Delhi High court on May 11, 2023, on petitions seeking to criminalize marital rape.
3). The third set of petitions included PILs challenging the constitutional validity of exception two to section 375 of the Indian penal code that treated such cases as an exception to the main provision on rape.
Section 375 of the Indian penal code defines rape as sexual intercourse without the consent of a woman. But exception two to section 375 says sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, who is 15 or above is not rape even If it is without her consent and will.
In October 2017, The supreme court ruled that sex with a woman underage amounted to rape as it read down the exception to section 375 of IPC.
The 172nd report of the law commission of India on “ Review of Rape laws” in March 2000 found that it was not recommended to Remove the exemption clause from section 375 “ since it could constitute amount to excessive interference with the marital relationship”.
The Karnataka government referred to Judge J.S. 2013 Verm, which recommended removing the marital rape exception and suggested that the law state that “a marital or other relationship between the offender or the victim is not a valid defense against the crime of rape or sexual assault ” constitutes sexual abuse.”
The signatories, including one activist, Ruth Manorama, argued that the exception undermines women’s consent to sex and undermines physical integrity, autonomy, and dignity
The signatories, including one activist, Ruth Manorama, argued that the exception undermines women’s consent to sex and undermines physical integrity, autonomy, and dignity.
Case Title: Hrishikesh sahoo v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2022 and connected matters).
Written by -Anushka Yadav student of ba.llb 2nd semester at Rnb Global University
