Pleas Challenging Marital Rape Exception : Live Updates From Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

17 Oct 2024 12:25 PM IST

Share this

Pleas Challenging Marital Rape Exception : Live Updates From Supreme Court

Listen to this Article

The Supreme Court is hearing today a batch of petitions seeking the criminalisation of marital rape.

The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the exception of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code which hold that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife will not come within the ambit of the offence of rape. The same provision is found in Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is the replacement of S.375 IPC. Some petitions challenge the BNS provision too.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra is hearing the matter.

The Union in its recent affidavit opposed the Court criminalising marital rape. The Union stated that alternative remedies in law already exist to protect married women against sexual violence and attracting the offence of "rape" to the institution of marriage may be "excessively harsh" and disproportionate.

Follow this thread for live-updates.

Live Updates

17 Oct 2024 2:27 PM IST
Nandy refers to S. 2(24) of BNS
17 Oct 2024 2:27 PM IST
CJI: how do you summarise in two lines that you are not creating an offence?
CJI : why is your junior standing? she can sit down, Mr Gopal you can also sit down
17 Oct 2024 2:21 PM IST
CJI: if a husband inserts any object into woman's vagina, if done by any other person would be rape, but just because its husband , it would not be rape
17 Oct 2024 2:20 PM IST
CJI: when the exception 2 provides for exception for sexual intercourse or sexual acts - its not just the peno-vaginal act
17 Oct 2024 2:20 PM IST
Nandy: in case of simple hurt 323 may be invoked .....the crux is - if the nonconsensual act of penetration would not be covered, the other concomitant acts may be covered
CJI: the offence of rape after 2013 amendment does cover only peno-vaginal act
17 Oct 2024 2:18 PM IST
Nandy: I may be in a live in relationship, the man has sex with me without consent it will be rape, I may wake up and say lets move on - it will be still rape
17 Oct 2024 2:18 PM IST
CJI: There is an assumption (in S.67 BNS) of offence , but if within fold of marriage is not an offence
Nandy: there is no intelligible differentia in the range of harms ....the range of harm if you are repeatedly by my husband or seperated husband or stranger is NOT DIFFEREN
17 Oct 2024 2:14 PM IST
Nandy: when we speak of creation of new offence, the focus is offence....there are 3 classes created (1) class of rapists unrelated to victims; (2) spouse who commit sexual intercourse without consent in relation ; (3) a seperated husband
17 Oct 2024 2:14 PM IST
Nandy: the word 'offence' is defined very clearly under S.2(1)(q) of BNS
17 Oct 2024 2:14 PM IST
Bench resumes
CJI: you are saying it violates right to equality, gender freedom
CJI: parliament intended that the act of sexual intercourse with wife above 18 yrs is not rape, if we strike down the exception, will we be creating a new offence?

Next Updates Previous Updates

Pleas Challenging Marital Rape Exception : Live Updates From Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Live Updates

Nandy refers to S. 2(24) of BNS

CJI: how do you summarise in two lines that you are not creating an offence? CJI : why is your junior standing? she can sit down, Mr Gopal you can also sit down

CJI: if a husband inserts any object into woman's vagina, if done by any other person would be rape, but just because its husband , it would not be rape

CJI: when the exception 2 provides for exception for sexual intercourse or sexual acts - its not just the peno-vaginal act

Nandy: in case of simple hurt 323 may be invoked .....the crux is - if the nonconsensual act of penetration would not be covered, the other concomitant acts may be covered CJI: the offence of rape after 2013 amendment does cover only peno-vaginal act

Nandy: I may be in a live in relationship, the man has sex with me without consent it will be rape, I may wake up and say lets move on - it will be still rape

CJI: There is an assumption (in S.67 BNS) of offence , but if within fold of marriage is not an offence Nandy: there is no intelligible differentia in the range of harms ....the range of harm if you are repeatedly by my husband or seperated husband or stranger is NOT DIFFEREN

Nandy: when we speak of creation of new offence, the focus is offence....there are 3 classes created (1) class of rapists unrelated to victims; (2) spouse who commit sexual intercourse without consent in relation ; (3) a seperated husband

Nandy: the word 'offence' is defined very clearly under S.2(1)(q) of BNS

Bench resumes CJI: you are saying it violates right to equality, gender freedom CJI: parliament intended that the act of sexual intercourse with wife above 18 yrs is not rape, if we strike down the exception, will we be creating a new offence?

CJI: how do you summarise in two lines that you are not creating an offence?
CJI : why is your junior standing? she can sit down, Mr Gopal you can also sit down

Nandy: in case of simple hurt 323 may be invoked .....the crux is - if the nonconsensual act of penetration would not be covered, the other concomitant acts may be covered
CJI: the offence of rape after 2013 amendment does cover only peno-vaginal act

CJI: There is an assumption (in S.67 BNS) of offence , but if within fold of marriage is not an offence
Nandy: there is no intelligible differentia in the range of harms ....the range of harm if you are repeatedly by my husband or seperated husband or stranger is NOT DIFFEREN

Bench resumes
CJI: you are saying it violates right to equality, gender freedom
CJI: parliament intended that the act of sexual intercourse with wife above 18 yrs is not rape, if we strike down the exception, will we be creating a new offence?