CJI defers hearing on criminalization of marital rape cases

In January last year, the Supreme Court decided to take up the issue itself instead of letting different high courts take a call.

New Delhi: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Wednesday deferred hearing on a clutch of pleas relating to criminalisation of marital rape.

CJI Chandrachud, who headed the three-judge bench dealing with the marital rape issue, apprehended that completion of oral arguments would take time and the judgment is unlikely to be delivered before his retirement. He is due to demit office on November 10 on attaining the age of 65 years.

Taking into consideration the timeline indicated by several lawyers representing diverse parties, the Bench, also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that “it would not be possible to complete the hearings in the foreseeable future”.

Resultantly, the CJI Chandrachud-led Bench recommended that the matter be taken up for hearing before a new bench after a period of four weeks.

In January last year, the Supreme Court had sought a response from the Union government on a clutch of petitions seeking the criminalisation of marital rape. It had decided to take up the issue itself instead of letting different high courts take a call.

In July 2022, the top court had stayed the Karnataka High Court judgment, which allowed the trial of a husband for allegedly raping his wife.

Before this, the Delhi High Court’s expressed ‘split views’ on the criminalisation of marital rape and in May 2022, an appeal was moved before the Supreme Court challenging the exception to Section 375 of the now-repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi HC expressed different opinions in the judgment on the exception to Section 375 of the IPC, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.

Justice Shakdher supported striking down the contentious law stating that the exemption of the husband from the offence of marital rape is unconstitutional to which Justice Shankar did not agree.

“The impugned provisions in so far as they concern a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent are violative of Article 14 and are therefore struck down,” said Justice Shakder.