Split views: What Delhi High Court judges mentioned on marital rape

Express News Service

NEW DELHI:  In a tongue in cheek remark, whereas delivering the decision in marital rape case, Justice Rajiv Shakdher mentioned within the courtroom order that he couldn’t persuade Justice C Hari Shankar to his standpoint and that maybe he “hears a beat of a different drummer”. 

A bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar delivered a cut up verdict on petitions searching for criminalisation of marital rape. While Justice Rajiv Shakdher struck down the Exception 2 that protects males, who’ve compelled non-consensual intercourse with their wives, from felony prosecution beneath Section 376 IPC, Justice C Hari Shankar disagreed saying that the exception doesn’t violate Article 14, 19 and 21.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher positioned on report his appreciation for Petitioners and their counsels together with senior Colin Gonsalves, Karuna Nundy and others. “The wealth of material that they placed before us in the form of reports and judgments helped me in finding what I believe is the right conclusion in the matter. Regrettably, I was not able to persuade Hon’ble Mr Justice C Hari Shankar to my point of view. He, perhaps, hears a beat of a different drummer. I respect that,” mentioned Justice Shakdher. 

Justice Shakder acknowledged {that a} married girl’s proper to convey the offending husband to justice must be recognised. “…Deifying women has no meaning if they are not empowered. It is time that all stakeholders bite the bullet. It would be tragic if a married woman’s call for justice is not heard even after 162 years, since the enactment of IPC”. 

Both the justices agreed to grant a certificates of go away to enchantment earlier than the SC. Meanwhile, Justice C Hari Shankar acknowledged that the petitioners’ case is premised on a essentially faulty postulate, for which there is no such thing as a assist obtainable.

“The impugned Exception does not violate Article 14, but is based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object both of the impugned Exception as well as Section 375 itself. I am of the considered opinion that the challenge, by the petitioners, to the constitutional validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Constitution, cannot sustain,” he mentioned.

Timeline of key rulings

1860: Indian Penal Code (IPC) comes into power with the marital rape exception being relevant to ladies above 10 years of age.

1940: IPC is amended and the marital rape exception is made obtainable to ladies above 15 years of age.
2015: A bunch of PILs urged the Delhi High Court to strike down the exception on the grounds that it discriminated towards married ladies.

Aug 29, 2017: Centre information it’s response within the High Court that it have to be ensured marital rape doesn’t destabilize the establishment of marriage.

Oct 11, 2017: Supreme Court amends the marital rape exception and guidelines that sexual activity by a person together with his spouse, the spouse not being beneath eighteen years of age, will not be rape.

Jan 7, 2022: The High Court begins day-to-day hearings on the petitions searching for criminalisation of marital rape.

Jan 13: Centre tells High Court it’s “already seized of the matter” and was contemplating a “constructive approach” to the difficulty of criminalising marital rape and has sought options from stakeholders together with state governments and union territories.

Jan 17: High Court asks Centre to make clear its in-principle place after time is sought to formulate and place its “considered stand”.

Jan 24: Centre urged earlier than High Court to grant it a “reasonable time” to put its place, says criminalisation of marital rape includes points that can not be checked out from a “microscopic angle.”

Jan 28: High Court asks Centre to tell whether or not it needs to withdraw its 2017 affidavit which mentioned that marital rape can’t be made a felony offence.

Feb 1: Centre tells High Court it’s “re-looking” at its earlier stand which was introduced on report by the use of an affidavit filed a number of years in the past and sought time to state its stand.

Feb 3: Central authorities urges High Court to defer listening to on pleas to criminalise marital rape and mentioned it’ll present a time-bound schedule inside which it’ll perform an efficient consultative course of on the difficulty.

Feb 7: Delhi High Court grants two weeks to the Centre to state its stand on the petitions.

Feb 21: High Court reserves verdict on petitions, refuses to grant extra time to Centre saying it was not potential to adjourn an ongoing matter as there is no such thing as a particular date by when the federal government’s consultations can be over on the difficulty.

May 11: High Court delivers a cut up verdict on the difficulty of criminalisation of marital rape and granted go away to the events to file an enchantment earlier than the Supreme Court.