The raising issues of martial rape in India got highlighted in a landmark case of RIT Foundation Vs Union of India. The martial rape exception is laid under Section 375 of IPC 1860. In this Delhi high Court gave a split verdict and implications of removing or maintaining the martial rape exception. We are going to talk about the legal and social as well as constitutional questions related to the case. The main purpose of this research paper is to recognize martial rape as crime
KEYWORDS
Marital rape, RIT Foundation, Constitution Rights, Gender Justice, Section 375 IPC, Women’s Rights.
INTRODUCTION
In India where rape within the marriage remains one of the most neglected areas of criminal law that the reason India is the one of the few countries where marital rape that continues to exempt from criminal prosecution. The main controversy is the marital rape given under the Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which states that- “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife is not rape if the wife is not being under 15 years of age.” This legal exception contradicts the principals of bodily autonomy and equality enshrined in the constitution.
FACTS
In this case of RIT foundation vs. Union of India (2022), the petitioners, including NGOs like the RIT Foundation and individual activists, they did file a public interest litigation before the Delhi Honourable High Court and challenged the constitutional validity and liability of the marital rape exception. They had argument regarding that the marital rape exception violated of the fundamental rights, under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), Articles 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Articles 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
ISSUE RAISED FROM THE PETITIONER
- The petitioner’s argued that this is Arbitrary and discriminatory: Violated the
fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality) as well as
- Violated Articles 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) and
- Violated Articles 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
BY THE RESPONDEN
- The respondent’s attorneys argued that, it protects the sanctity of marriage, a socially and legally recognized institution in India.
- And also argued that the marriage implies implied consent to sexual relations.
JUDGEMENT/ DECISION
The Delhi High Court gave a split verdict on May 11, 2022. Thus, case was heard by a division bench and reached different conclusions. In the court, “Justice Rajiv Shakdher” held that marital rape exception is unconstitutional and arbitrary. He said that in marriage doesn’t mean to unconditional or permanent consent to sexual acts or sexual intercourse both husband and wife has the legal right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity within the marital relationship. Justice Shakdher also concluded that the exceptions violate the legal rights of married women to live with dignity as well as autonomy. On other side, Justice C. Hari Shankar stated that the exception for marital rape in law is constitutional and that the legislature had made a deliberate distinction between marital and non-marital relationships. He also held that this distinction is based on a reasonable classification and it does not violate fundamental right given under the Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Indian Constitution. The case, which resulted in a split verdict by division bench of the Delhi High Court, has now been referred to the Supreme Court of India for the final adjudication. The debate and controversy over the criminalization of marital rape continues, this case stands at the crossroads of constitutional values, gender justice and legal reform in India.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this research paper, I implemented a doctrinal method and based on the analysis of the primary sources for this research, this paper including all the appropriate sections of IPC, constitutional provision and argument as well as the decision taken by the two-judge bench of the Honourable Delhi High Court in this case. All information gathered from the secondary source like newspaper, articles NGO reports and journals in this paper. This research descriptive in nature and examines the decision of the Honourable Delhi High Court divisional bench in the case of RIT Foundation vs. Union of India (2022).
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The legal scholars are often criticized on this marital rape exception they said that it’s an idea like an old colonial times rules where women are treated unfairly and the exception is violating the women’s rights. There are few journals and articles such as, ‘Indian Journal of Gender Studies’ and ‘NUJS Law Review’ have analysed the historical origins of the exception as well as what kind of social impact can be affecting in our society for it continued existence.
Here, the international law supports criminalisation of marital rap. Agreements like the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discriminations Against Women (CEDAW) on the basis of gender some countries should stop the violent. There are few countries like UK, Canada, and South Africa are already removed such laws. Where in Indian Courts have been cautions and avoid doing what should be done by lawmakers. However, they consider marital rape as a valid reason for divorce in civil cases.
In the case of RIT Foundations vs. Union of India (2022), has been discussed about a lot on several legal websites like on livelaw and other legal sites as well. Court that they should step in and make a decision in favour of removing the marital rape exception.
METHOD
In the research paper critically analyses the different legal opinions which is given by Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Justices C. Hari Shanker in the split verdict in the case of RIT Foundations vs. Union of India (2022). In this method involves a comprehensive study of international laws, the constitution and examinations of legal precedents, including case laws such as “Independent Thought vs. Union of India” (2017) and “Joseph Shine vs. Union of India” (2018). The main purpose to focuses on laws that protect individuals’ rights.
SUGGESTIONS
- Legislative Repeal of Exception 2: Parliament should amend the “Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860”, to remove the marital rape exception 2 so it can follow the international human rights rule.
- Public Awareness Campaigns: Society as well as government must work together to fight with these false beliefs on marital rape.
- Sensitisation and Training: The judiciary and police should handle marital rape cases with due care.
- Establish Support Systems: The government should ensure about marital rape survivors that they get the all essential facilities like proper healthcare, counselling and shelter.
CONCLUSION
The case of RIT Foundation vs. Union of India, is not just a legal case it’s a turning point to fight for gender justice in society. The marital rape exception reduces independence and dignity of a women. By retaining this exception, Indian law fails to treat married women as equal citizens. It is essential for the courts to take a strong action and consider marital rape as a crime to ensure gender justice in India.
Name: Susmita Chatterjee
Collage: Kolkata Police Law Institute