You are here: Home » Current Affairs » News » National
Business Standard

Criminalising marital rape: Delhi High Court delivers split verdict

Exception 2 of IPC Section 375 says that a rape charge cannot be filed against a man who has non-consensual sex with his wife

Topics
marital rape | Delhi High Court | Crime against women

BS Web Team & PTI  |  New Delhi 

gavel

The Delhi High Court's divisional Bench on Wednesday delivered a split verdict in the case regarding the validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the (IPC).

The exception says that a charge cannot be filed against a man who has non-consensual sex with his wife.

This very exception and its validity was challenged before the .

The verdicts of the two judges -- Justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar -- differed on the matter. While Justice Shakdher struck down the provision as unconstitutional, Justice Shankar upheld it.

The High Court had also appointed Senior Advocates Rebecca John and Rajshekhar Rao as amici curiae (impartial advisors to the court of law) in the matter.

While delivering the verdict, Justice Shakdher said "as far as I am concerned, the impugned provisions -- exception 2 to section 375 and section 376 (E)... are violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1) (A) and 21 of the Constitution and are hence struck down." He said this declaration will operate from the date of its pronouncement.

However, Justice Shankar said "I have not been able to agree with my learned brother" and added that these provisions do not violate Articles 14, 19 (1) (A), and 21 of the Constitution.

He said the courts cannot substitute their subjective value judgement for the view of the democratically elected legislature and the exception is based on an intelligible differentia.

He said the challenge to the provisions by the petitioners cannot sustain.

In February, the Centre had urged the court to grant more time to enable it to state its stand on the issue after a consultative process.

The request was, however, turned down by the Bench on the ground that it was not possible to defer an ongoing matter endlessly.

In its 2017 affidavit, the Centre had opposed the pleas, saying that could not be made a criminal offence as it could become a phenomenon that may destabilise the institution of marriage and an easy tool for harassing husbands.

Dear Reader,


Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

First Published: Wed, May 11 2022. 14:50 IST
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
.