An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court today against the Delhi High Court’s split decision on conviction of marital rape or marital rape. The appeal was filed by Khushboo Saifi, one of the petitioners, who challenged the constitutional status of marital rape exemption under section 375 IPC (rape) on the ground that it discriminated against these married women. Treats those who are sexually harassed by their husbands. A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdhar and Justice C Hari Shankar had on May 11 delivered a scathing verdict in the case. Justice Shakadhar declared the provision unconstitutional, while Justice Shankar upheld it. The bench, while ruling separately in the matter, allowed the petitioners to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. Appellant Saifi has upheld the decision of Justice Rajiv Shakadhar and challenged the opinion of Justice Hari Shankar.
What is Section 375?
Exception 2 of section 375 of the IPC effectively provides that a person cannot be charged with rape if he has consensual sex with his wife. Forced sex by a man with his wife, not less than 15 years of age, is not considered rape. Simply put, the exception to Section 375 2, which outlaws marital rape or directs a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife in marriage, is not rape.
The judges said that the Supreme Court should consider.
In favor of criminalizing marital rape, Justice Rajiv Shakadhar observed that the continuation of this exemption under the Indian Penal Code is a “serious issue” as it allows a woman to have unprotected sex with her husband. Makes it a “serious problem” to prosecute. Weakens the authority. On the other hand, highlighting the importance of sexual autonomy for women, Justice Hari Shankar said that immunity under rape law is not unconstitutional. Both the judges also said that it should be considered by the Supreme Court.
Different decisions in the same case
Its legitimacy was challenged in the High Court. A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rajiv Shakadhar and Justice C Hari Shankar had on May 11 passed separate verdicts in the case. While Justice Shakdhar declared the provision unconstitutional, Justice Shankar upheld it. “As far as sexual intercourse with the wife without the consent of the husband is concerned, it is a violation of Article 14 and has therefore been revoked,” the judge said. Justice Shankar ruled, “I do not agree with that. There is no support to show that the unlawful exemption violates Articles 14, 19 or 21. There is a sensible difference. I think the challenge remains.” Can’t be kept