The Centre lodged an affidavit before the Supreme Court opposing petitions that have called for the criminalisation of marital rape in India. In its counter-affidavit filed through advocate AK Sharma, the Union Home Ministry supported the existing Indian rape law that carves out an exception for sexual relations between a husband and wife.
The Centre remarked that the issue is more of a social than a legal one, which has a direct bearing on society in general. It further argued that even if marital rape is to be criminalised, it is not up to the Supreme Court to do so.
It added that the issue cannot be decided without proper consultation with all the stakeholders or taking the views of all the states into consideration. It mentioned that the act colloquially referred to as marital rape ought to be illegal and criminalized. The Centre stated that a woman’s consent is not obliterated by marriage, and its violation should result in penal consequences. Nonetheless, the consequences of such violations within marriage differ from those outside it.
It further mentioned that a breach of consent should be punished differently, depending on whether such an act occurs within or outside a marriage. It said that in a marriage, there is a continuing expectation to have reasonable sexual access from one’s spouse, clarifying that such expectations do not entitle a husband to coerce his wife to have sex against her will. However, it may be excessive and disproportionate to punish a man under anti-rape laws for such an act, the Centre remarked.
It also stressed that the parliament has already provided different remedies to protect a married woman’s consent within marriage. These include laws punishing cruelty to married women (Section 498A under the Indian Penal Code), laws punishing acts against the modesty of women and remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The affidavit mentioned that the sexual aspect is but one of many facets of the relationship between husband and wife, on which the bedrock of their marriage rests. It added that given the nature of the marital institution in our socio-legal milieu, if the legislature is of the view that, for preservation of the marital institution, the impugned Exception should be retained, it is contended that it would not be appropriate for the Supreme Court to strike down the Exception.
The counter-affidavit was lodged in response to a batch of petitions that have called for the criminalisation of marital rape. The Centre criticised the petitioners’ approach of treating the institution of marriage as a private institution, calling this view unidimensional. It stated that the case of a married woman and her own husband cannot be treated in the exact same manner as other cases.
It said that it is up to the legislature to classify the penal consequences of sexual abuse in varying situations differently.
The Centre argued that the existing law does not disregard consent to sexual advances between spouses, but only accords a different treatment when it is within a marriage.
It maintained that this approach is also in line with Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution as it refuses to treat two incomparable situations (in this case, sexual relations within a marriage and those outside a marriage) as equal.
Furthermore, the Centre mentioned that it is committed to the liberty and dignity of women, and that marital rape does not need to be criminalised since there are alternative suitably tailored penal remedies.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra is currently seized of the matter.
Notably, Marital rape is excluded from the ambit of rape by way of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, a similar provision is also present in the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the IPC on July 1 this year.
The Delhi High Court in 2022 delivered a split verdict on whether marital rape should be a criminal offence. The case then reached the Supreme Court in September that year.