Back
to Hear Union Sept 9 on Case
The on Monday declined to immediately postpone the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the of the under . A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, stated that it would hear the Union government on before fixing a date for final arguments. The Court rejected a request to defer the matter until November, signalling its intent to move forward with one of the most closely watched gender justice cases in recent years.
The proceedings stem from a of the , where Justice Rajiv Shakdher held —which immunises non-consensual sexual acts by a husband against his adult wife—to be unconstitutional, while Justice C Hari Shankar upheld the exception, ruling that the legislature’s classification was based on an . The resulting legal uncertainty has left the matter pending before the , which now faces the task of resolving the conflicting interpretations.
Background: The
Section 375 of the IPC defines rape, but Exception 2 carves out an exemption for husbands, stating that sexual intercourse or acts by a man with his own wife, not under 18, is not rape. This provision has been widely criticised by women’s rights groups as discriminatory and violative of a married woman’s and . The challenge before the asks whether this exception violates Articles 14 (), 15 (), and 21 () of the .
The batch of eight matters listed as Item 108 on includes four cases arising from the , three fresh petitions, and an appeal against a ruling that refused to quash marital rape charges framed against a husband under . The Union government, while yet to file a , has raised preliminary objections, arguing that the is valid.
Key Developments in Court
When the matter was mentioned by
, she highlighted the procedural complexities.
"The matter is listed on
as Item 108 for
. It is a group of eight matters, some of which challenge the
of the
. Four matters arise from a reference made following the
of the
, while three are fresh petitions, including one filed in
. The Union has not filed a
in response, apart from raising a
through a common order,"
she submitted.
Jaising further pointed out that copies of all petitions had not been exchanged among counsel, making it difficult to ascertain common legal grounds. She requested the Bench to fix a date for in November instead. However, the Court was not persuaded.
Responding to the submission regarding the absence of a
from the Centre, Chief Justice Kant remarked:
"When it is a
matter… what is the need for the counter?"
This observation suggests that the Court may not require the government’s detailed response on constitutional questions, as the validity of a statute can be examined on the basis of the law itself.
intervened to stress the importance of the government’s input.
"It will be of some assistance, especially on such a question,"
Nundy said, indicating that the Union’s affidavit could help the Court understand the
and any
for retaining the exception.
also informed the Bench that the matter involves distinct factual and legal matrices that have been clubbed together, adding another layer of complexity.
Legal Analysis: The Constitutional Challenge
The core issue before the is whether violates the fundamental rights of married women. The has already highlighted the deep judicial divergence. Justice Shakdher’s opinion emphasised that the exception perpetuates and denies married women the same protection against sexual violence that unmarried women enjoy. He held that the classification based on marriage is not based on an and is .
Conversely, Justice Hari Shankar reasoned that the legislature’s decision to carve out the exception was grounded in the unique nature of the marital relationship, which he argued is based on . He found that the classification was reasonable and that the remedy for a wife lies in other legal provisions such as the , or cruelty under .
The will now have to decide which interpretation aligns with and the evolving understanding of . The case also raises questions about the in matters of social policy and whether the Court should defer to or strike down a provision that appears to be out of step with contemporary values.
Impact on Legal Practice
For criminal law practitioners, the outcome of this case could fundamentally alter the landscape of . Currently, a husband cannot be prosecuted for rape under Section 376 if the victim is his wife above 18 years. If the strikes down Exception 2, it would open the door for thousands of cases, requiring courts to adapt procedural and to handle complaints of marital sexual violence.
The case also has implications for the interpretation of other criminal laws that treat marital status as a . Legal professionals will be watching closely to see if the Court uses this opportunity to set a precedent for the abolition of similar exceptions in other statutes.
Moreover, the ’s decision on whether to call for a from the Union will influence how future constitutional challenges are framed. If the Court proceeds without a detailed government response, it may accelerate the pace of , but could also deprive the bench of critical data on the societal impact of striking down the provision.
Conclusion
As the gears up to hear the Union government on , the legal community awaits a definitive ruling on one of the most contentious issues in Indian criminal law. The refusal to defer the hearing reflects the Court’s recognition of the urgency and importance of the matter. With multiple petitions, a split high court verdict, and strong public interest, the stage is set for a landmark judgment that could redefine the boundaries of marital consent and women’s rights in India. The coming weeks will be critical as the bench determines the schedule for final arguments and, ultimately, delivers a verdict that will resonate for generations.
