Marital rape: Delhi High Court’s decision challenged, case reaches Supreme Court

Resize the font.

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court today against the Delhi High Court’s split decision on marital rape or marital rape. Khushboo Saifi, one of the petitioners, filed the petition challenging the constitutional status of marital rape exemption under section 375 IPC (rape) that it discriminates against these married women. Those who are victims of sexual harassment by their husbands treat them. A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdhar and Justice C Hari Shankar passed the verdict in the case on May 11. Justice Shakdhar declared the provision unconstitutional, and Justice Shankar upheld it. The bench, while ruling on the matter separately, allowed the petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court. Appellant Saifi upheld the decision of Justice Rajiv Shakdhar and challenged the opinion of Justice Hari Shankar.

What is Section 375?

Exceptions to section 375 of the IPC effectively provide that a man cannot be charged with rape if he has consensual sex with his wife. A man with his wife, who is not less than 15 years of age, is not considered a rapist. Simply put, the exception to section 375 2, which makes marital rape illegal or directs a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife in marriage, is not rape.

The judges said the Supreme Court should consider.

In favor of criminalizing marital rape, Justice Rajiv Shakdhar observed that the continuation of this exemption under Indian penal code is a “serious problem” because it allows a woman to have unprotected sex with her husband. This makes it a “serious problem” to judge. Weakens 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 justices said it should be considered by the Supreme Court.

See also  LPG 19kg cylinder prices June 1, 2022: 19 kg commercial cylinder Rs 135 cheaper, find out the price of household cylinder

Different decisions in the same case

Its validity is challenged in the High Court. A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdhar and Justice C Hari Shankar gave separate verdicts in the case on May 11. Although 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 section 14 and has therefore been revoked,” the judge said. Justice Shankar ruled, “I do not agree with this. There is no support to show that illegal exemption violates Articles 14, 19 or 21. There is a reasonable difference. I think the challenge remains.” Can’t keep up