Can't immediately respond to marital rape, can't be looked from microscopic angle: SC to Delhi HC

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that he would be doing an 'injustice to citizens' if the government's case is put in a half-hearted way and urged the court to allow a reasonable time to place their position

Press Trust of India January 24, 2022 23:05:59 IST
Can't immediately respond to marital rape, can't be looked from microscopic angle: SC to Delhi HC

The Supreme Court of India. PTI

New Delhi: The issue of criminalisation of marital rape involves family issues as well as the dignity of a woman and cannot be looked at from a microscopic angle, the Centre on Monday told the Delhi High Court as it said that it was not possible for it to immediately respond with its stand.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, stated that he would be doing an "injustice to the citizens" if the government's case is put in a half-hearted way and urged the court to allow a reasonable time to place their position after consultation with the stakeholders, especially when there is no imminent threat to anyone in the meantime.

Your lordships are not just deciding the statutory or constitutional validity of a provision. It may not be looked at from that microscopic angle Here, the dignity of a woman is at stake. There are family issues. There would be several considerations which would weigh with the government to take a position to assist your lordship, he told the court.
It would not be possible for Centre to respond immediately, particularly when there is no imminent threat that something is going to happen to someone. I would reiterate my request that we would need a reasonable, he stated.
Maintaining that the Centre has to be very conscious, the solicitor general asserted that in view of the petitioners' submissions and a similar stand taken by the amicus curiae appointed by the court, it would not be appropriate for the central government to not tell the court to have a wider view of the matter.

I don't feel it would be appropriate for the central government either not to tell your lordships to have a wider view of the matter by inviting other stakeholders orwe will have to consider it in a holistic manner, he submitted.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who is heading the bench dealing with the petitions challenging the marital law exception in rape law, said that the matter cannot be kept hanging and the court would like to conclude the hearings.

I'm not saying no. Let her (amicus) finish. I'll give you another week- ten days but beyond that, it becomes difficult for me to say we will hear, we will hear... Come back to me in 10 days, the judge said.

For some people and here, there is a live case (of one of the petitioners), every day matters for a simple reason that some say this abuse is happening, maybe not reported but this is happening. Now it can't be our answer that listens it has been there for 100 years now what is the urgency. Now that we've started we'd like to conclude, said Justice Shakdher who added that given the importance of the issue, whoever is aggrieved party would carry it to the next court.

The solicitor general said that "lives were at stake" and reiterated that time was needed to place the Centre's formulated stand before the court after consultation.

The bench, also comprising Justice C Hari Shankar, is hearing PILs filed by NGOs RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women's Association, a man and a woman seeking striking down of the exception granted to husbands under the Indian rape law.

The Centre, on January 13, had told the high court that it was considering a constructive approach to the issue and has sought suggestions from several stakeholders and authorities on comprehensive amendments to the criminal law.

Central government standing counsel Monika Arora had told the bench that the Centre was undertaking a comprehensive task of amending the criminal law which includes section 375 (rape) of the IPC. On January 17, the court had asked the Centre to clarify its in-principle position on the issue of criminalising marital rape after the government sought time to formulate and place its considered stand.

The central government, in its earlier affidavit filed in the case, has said that marital rape cannot be made a criminal offence as it could become a phenomenon that may destabilise the institution of marriage and an easy tool for harassing the husbands.

The Delhi government has told the court that marital rape was already covered as a "crime of cruelty" under the IPC.
The petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the marital rape exception under section 375 IPC (rape) on the ground that it discriminated against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.

The hearing in the case will continue on January 25.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Updated Date:

also read

Supreme Court recognises prostitution as profession: What does this mean for sex workers
India

Supreme Court recognises prostitution as profession: What does this mean for sex workers

The apex court in its order stated that sex workers are entitled to dignity and equal protection under the law. The three-judge bench ordered that sex workers shouldn't be harassed or penalised by the police and their complaints should be taken seriously

Explained: The long road to freedom for AG Perarivalan, convict in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case
India

Explained: The long road to freedom for AG Perarivalan, convict in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case

AG Perarivalan was sentenced to death for his role in the 1991 assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. He was 19 when charged for buying the two nine-volt batteries that were used in the suicide-bombing belt

SC cites ‘extraordinary power’ to release Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict: Article 142 explained
India

SC cites ‘extraordinary power’ to release Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict: Article 142 explained

Article 142 gives the apex court wide-ranging powers to act in order to achieve “complete justice” in any matter. This is relevant because the mercy plea of AG Perarivalan, who spent 31 years in prison, was pending before a long time