I. Brief history of rape law

Justice Rajiv Shakdher begins his judgment with a historical overview of rape law, emphasising the evolution of the concept of marital rape. He notes that the origins of the Marital Rape Exception (MRE) can be traced back to the doctrine of coverture, which held that a married woman’s legal rights were subsumed by her husband’s. This historical context is crucial for understanding the archaic nature of the MRE, which Justice Shakdher describes as being rooted in a time when women were treated as mere property of their husbands.

II. Separation of powers and judicial restraint

Justice Shakdher addresses the argument that the judiciary should not interfere with legislative decisions, particularly in matters of criminal law. The counsel for one of the intervenors—Men’s Welfare Trust— had argued that if the court were to exercise the powers under Article 226, and strike down MRE, it would have carried out a legislative act thus blurring the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

Justice Shakdher first establishes via rich case law that in India, the separation of powers is not as rigid as it is in other jurisdictions. Having established it as such, he essentially states that the doctrine does not preclude the judiciary from examining the constitutionality of laws to legislate but to ensure that laws are in compliance with the Constitution (Para 123).

His reasoning behind the court’s power to address the constitutionality of the MRE—against the argument that the Court cannot legislate—is simple and to the point. He states that Article 13 empowers courts to declare void any laws that contravene Part III (Fundamental Rights). Therefore, according to Justice Shakdher, the court’s power includes, as in this case, the authority to deem a law or provision unconstitutional. He states as follows: “The submission that the issues involved concern a policy decision which, in turn, requires wide ranging consultations with members of the public and domain experts misses, if I may say so, the wood for the trees inasmuch as it fails to accept that what the court has before it is a legal issue i.e., whether or not the impugned provisions (which includes MRE) violate a married woman’s fundamental rights conferred under the Constitution.” (Para 125)

Justice Shakdher rejects the notion that judicial restraint should prevent the court from examining the constitutionality of the MRE. To let it be handled by legislature which actually has the means to conduct consultations with a diverse set of stakeholders, it is not an economic/policy issue. According to him, it is a legal issue with alleged violations of fundamental rights and “Side-stepping such issues would be akin to the court seeking “an alibi” for refusing to decide a legal controversy, which it is obliged in law to decide.” (Para 127)

III. Ambit of section 375 of the IPC-Article 14 Test

Justice Shakdher analyses Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines rape. He emphasises that rape’s unlawfulness hinges on whether sexual acts were consensual. Section 375’s Clauses (a)-(d) ignore marital status. They apply to all forced sexual acts, except when the offender is a husband. Similarly, married women cannot file criminal charges against their husbands under these clauses. (Para 135.2)

Justice Shakdher identifies consent as central to Section 375. He then examines the Marital Rape Exception (MRE), which treats married and unmarried individuals differently. He concludes MRE violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Why? He applies the Article 14 test: a law’s “intelligible differentia” (clear distinction) must rationally connect to its object. MRE’s marital distinction, he argues, has no rational nexus to Section 375’s goal of criminalizing non-consensual acts. (Para 137.1)

Instead of treating MRE and Section 375 as separate, the judgement treats MRE against Section 375’s core objective. He finds MRE fails this test, as it exempts husbands from liability without justification.

Justice Shakdher’s reasoning behind striking down the Marital Rape Exception (MRE) is compelling not just for its legal soundness but also for the sheer weight of real-life examples he brings forth. His judgement does not merely counter Justice Hari Shankar’s argument that marriage creates a sexual expectation—it systematically dismantles the sexual expectation argument by highlighting multiple instances where a married woman is denied agency over her body, even in situations where fundamental rights to dignity and health should prevail.

One of the most striking aspects of his judgment is his reference to instances where a married woman’s lack of consent is disregarded: when her husband has a communicable disease, when she is unwell, or when the husband is involved in gang rape with co-accused. These examples puncture holes in the argument that marriage inherently implies perpetual consent. As he illustrates:

• Forced sex outside marriage is recognised as “real rape,” yet the same act within marriage is deemed something else.
• A chaste woman or a young girl is more likely to be considered a victim, but a married woman is not.
• A prior sexual relationship is regarded as a reasonable defense on the assumption of consent, yet a married woman’s consent is not even put to test.
• A sex worker has the legal right to refuse sex, but a married woman does not.
• In cases of gang rape where the husband is involved, the co-accused faces the full force of the law, while the husband is exempt merely due to his marital status.
• A married woman has no legal protection even when her husband has a communicable disease or when she herself is unwell. (Para 137.1)

However, Justice Shakdher’s judgement does not stop with disproving the idea of absolute and perpetual sexual expectation in marriage. It goes a step further, challenging the very notion that the State has a legitimate interest in protecting a marriage that functions as a site of tyranny. His judgment is uncompromising in its stance that when husbands are raping their wives, the law cannot seek to preserve such a structure. In his words:

“When marriage is tyranny, the State cannot have a plausible legitimate interest in saving it.” (Para 137.1)

This statement alone renders MRE indefensible under Article 14. The classification between married and unmarried women is not just arbitrary but actively unjust. He applies the test of reasonableness from Slattery v. Naylor (1888) and Kruse v. Johnson (1898), concluding that MRE is manifestly unjust and oppressive. He states:

“If one were to apply the aforesaid test the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the classification between married and unmarried couples in the context of forced sex is not just unequal in its operation but is also manifestly unjust. MRE, in my opinion, is also oppressive as it can find no justification in the minds of reasonable men, for lawmakers could never have intended to make such a law.” (Para 138)

Justice Shakdher critiques the over-reliance on the test of classification, arguing that courts must go beyond rigid categorisation and examine how a law actually operates on the ground. The real effect and impact on those subjected to it must take precedence over remote or indirect consequences, his judgement states, relying on Anuj Garg & Ors. v. Hotel Association of India & Ors.^[2] The Doctrine of Classification must ultimately serve the core principle of equality, not override it. (Para 140)

Applying this to MRE, he highlights its immediate and glaring impact: an unmarried rape survivor can seek protection under various IPC and CrPC provisions, but a married woman is denied the same safeguards. She cannot benefit from identity protection (Section 228A IPC), medical examination provisions (Sections 53A, 164A CrPC), gender-sensitive trial procedures (Sections 26, 154, 161, 309 CrPC), in-camera trials (Section 327 CrPC), or mandatory medical aid (Section 357C CrPC).

He states as follows while declaring the MRE to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution:

“The fact that the law does not operate even-handedly for women who are similarly circumstanced i.e. subjected to forced sex is writ large and no amount of legal callisthenics will sustain MRE. Therefore, in my view, MRE is bad in law as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.” (Para 141.1)

IV. On other arguments

Justice Shakdher dismantles the argument that MRE is justified because other IPC provisions are also relationship-based. He clarifies that while some laws exempt spouses from prosecution (e.g., Sections 136, 212, 216, 216A IPC), these apply only to harboring offenders, not committing offenses against a spouse. MRE, however, shields the husband precisely because he is the perpetrator, making the comparison fundamentally flawed.

He also rejects the claim that married women have alternative legal remedies under IPC and other statutes. Section 498A (cruelty), Section 304B (dowry death), and Section 306 (abetment of suicide) do not address rape—they deal with specific forms of abuse. Even the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act), while recognizing sexual abuse, does not criminalize marital rape. Instead, it provides civil remedies like protection orders and financial relief but denies the survivor the ability to prosecute her rapist husband under Section 376(1) IPC.

The result? The judgement points out to a glaring legal loophole where a wife can report every other crime committed by her husband except rape. This exposes the hollowness of the claim that existing laws protect married women against sexual violence.

V. MRE violates Article 21 of the Constitution

Justice Shakdher asserts that the MRE violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. He argues that the MRE undermines a woman’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy by immunizing husbands from prosecution for non-consensual sexual acts within marriage.

Justice Shakdher states, “The right to withdraw consent at any given point in time forms the core of the woman’s right to life and liberty which encompasses her right to protect her physical and mental being. Non-consensual sex destroys this core by violating what is dear to her, which is, her dignity, bodily integrity, autonomy and agency and the choice to procreate or even not to procreate. While marital rape leaves physical scars, it inflicts much deeper scars on the psyche of the victim which remain with her years after the offence has occurred.”  (Para 163)

Therefore, denying a married woman the right to legally recognize rape by her husband strikes at the core of her right to life and liberty under Article 21.

VI. MRE Violates Articles 15 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution

Justice Shakdher also examines the MRE’s impact on Articles 15 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantee protection from discrimination and the right to freedom of expression, respectively. He argues that the MRE perpetuates gender discrimination by treating married women differently from unmarried women.

Justice Shakdher states, “The guarantee of freedom of expression includes a woman’s right to assert her sexual agency and autonomy. The fact that this right is also secured by Article 21 (which is available to non-citizens as well) lends strength to the right conferred on a married woman to express herself and not be subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse by her husband.”  (Para 166.1)

VII. Presumption of constitutionality of pre-constitutional statutes

The judgment addresses the presumption of constitutionality concerning pre-constitutional laws like the IPC, asserting that such laws are not immune from constitutional scrutiny. While Article 372 saves pre-constitutional laws, it does not shield them from being tested against fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1) (a) and 21.

The judgment acknowledges the argument from Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India and Joseph Shine that pre-constitutional statutes do not enjoy an inherent presumption of constitutionality.[3]

Further, the judgement emphasizes the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation. Relying on Anuj Garg, it holds that laws, even if constitutional at inception, can become unconstitutional due to societal changes. Thus, outdated legal provisions must be reassessed to align with contemporary constitutional values. (Para 172.1)

VIII. Foreign decisions, international covenants, and Indian parliamentary reports

The judgment pushes back against objections to relying on foreign decisions and international covenants, pointing out that legal systems worldwide have already moved past the idea that marriage grants immunity from rape. Cases like CR v. UK (ECHR) and People v. Liberta (New York Court of Appeals) make it clear that the marital rape exemption has no place in modern law. Courts in Nepal and the Philippines have also ruled that forced sex in marriage is still rape, reinforcing that consent does not become irrelevant after marriage.

It recognises the importance of international conventions like CEDAW and the Beijing Declaration emphasize gender equality and protection against sexual violence, making it clear that MRE goes against India’s global commitments. Courts in India have previously used international law to interpret domestic statutes, and the judgment follows that precedent.

As for parliamentary reports, multiple committees—including the Justice Verma Committee—have called for scrapping MRE. The fact that the legislature hasn’t acted doesn’t mean courts can’t step in. Navtej Singh Johar made it clear that legislative inaction is a “neutral fact” and doesn’t block judicial review.  The judgement recognises this and follows the same principle.

IX. On miscellaneous issues

Conjugal expectations and marital rights

The judgment critiques the notion of “conjugal expectation,” clarifying that while legitimate during a harmonious marriage, it cannot equate to an unfettered right to non-consensual sex. It references Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and Order XXI Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), noting that even restitution decrees for conjugal rights cannot mandate consummation. The law must respect marital consent, not impose obligations. (Para 146)

Marriage as an institution vs. individual rights

The judgment rejects the argument that excluding marital rape from Section 375 IPC protects the institution of marriage. It emphasizes that marriage is a union of individuals rooted in mutuality, respect, and autonomy. When these principles are violated, the institution collapses. The state’s role is limited to recognizing/dissolving marriages via laws like the HMA, Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act), and IPC provisions (Sections 375–376B), not shielding perpetrators of sexual violence (Para 148.3).

Labeling marital rape as “rape”

The judgment argues that sexual assault by a husband falling under Section 375 must be labeled as rape to reflect societal disapproval. It critiques societal stigma against victims, not perpetrators, and dismisses the distinction between marital rape and other IPC offenses (e.g., hurt under Sections 319–323, cruelty under Section 498A). Labeling is critical for legal accountability. (Para 149)

False cases and empirical evidence

The judgment refutes fears of false cases, citing National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) 2015–16 data showing 99% of sexual assaults go unreported. It dismisses the argument as exaggerated, noting courts handle false complaints under IPC provisions like Section 498A (Para 151). The state’s interest in protecting women from abuse outweighs unfounded concerns about misuse.

Here too, we can see the contrast in Justice Rajiv Shakdher’s judgement and Justice Hari Shankar’s judgement in terms of reliance on data. As mentioned in our analysis of Justice Harishankar’s judgement, his analysis lacks empirical data or backing of scholarly work when he asserts that rape by a stranger and non-consensual sexual activity by a husband are not equal in the terms of the psychological trauma they inflict on the woman.

Invasion of the private sphere

The judgment rejects claims that prosecuting marital rape invades private marital space. It distinguishes rape from other marital crimes (e.g., cruelty, hurt) by emphasizing constitutional rights. Citing Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018), it holds that privacy cannot shield rights violations, and marital intimacy is not exempt from constitutional scrutiny (Para 152).[4] The judgment dismisses arguments about evidentiary difficulties, equating marital rape to other private-space crimes. 

Conclusion

Justice Rajiv Shakdher’s judgment in RIT Foundation is a masterclass in constitutional adjudication, dismantling the marital rape exception (MRE) not merely as a legal anomaly but as a moral affront to India’s republican ethos. By anchoring his analysis in the lived realities of women—where marriage becomes a license for tyranny—he transcends abstract doctrinal debates to expose the MRE’s core flaw: its reduction of women to chattel, stripped of autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity.

Justice Shakdher’s reasoning is a rebuke to judicial timidity. He rejects the facile argument that courts must defer to legislative “policy choices,” reminding us that the judiciary’s duty is to safeguard fundamental rights, not shield regressive laws from scrutiny. His invocation of Article 13—declaring unconstitutional any law that violates Part III—is a clarion call for courts to actively engage with societal evolution, rather than entombing themselves in the formalism of “separation of powers.”

The judgment’s brilliance lies in its refusal to treat marriage as a sacred cow. It dissects the MRE’s “conjugal expectations” myth, revealing it as a fig leaf for systemic misogyny. By contrasting the legal protections afforded to unmarried rape survivors with the abject denial of justice for married women, it lays bare the MRE’s arbitrary cruelty.

Yet, Justice Shakdher’s verdict is more than a legal victory; it is a philosophical manifesto. His assertion that “when marriage is tyranny, the State cannot have a legitimate interest in saving it” challenges the very premise of a legal regime that prioritizes familial “stability” over individual rights. This is not merely about criminalizing marital rape—it is about redefining marriage itself as a partnership of equals, not a hierarchy of domination.

In contrast, Justice Hari Shankar’s deference to legislative inaction and his elevation of marriage as an institution above constitutional rights represent a jurisprudential throwback, clinging to a vision of the law as a tool for social control rather than liberation. The split verdict, therefore, is not merely a clash of legal opinions but a microcosm of India’s broader struggle between tradition and transformation.

Justice Shakdher’s judgment is a testament to the Constitution’s living spirit—a reminder that rights are not mere parchment promises but living guarantees that demand constant vigilance. By striking down the MRE, he does not merely correct a legal wrong; he reaffirms the judiciary’s role as the Constitution’s moral compass, ensuring a future where no woman’s body is subjected to patriarchal entitlement. In doing so, he invites us to reimagine justice not as a compromise between competing interests, but as an uncompromising commitment to human dignity.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1404

^[2]  (2008) 3 SCC 1

[3] (2018) 10 SCC 1

[4] (2019) 3 SCC 39

Related:

D*ck or fist

A Licence to Violate: Chhattisgarh HC’s ruling on marital rape exposes a legal travesty’

The post When marriage is tyranny: Justice Shakdher’s judgment reads down the marital rape exception as a constitutional imperative appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While Justice Rajiv Shakdher struck down the MRE, Justice C. Hari Shankar dismissed the petitions—upholding the constitutional validity of the MRE. This article will focus on Justice C. Hari Shankar’s opinion that upheld the constitutionality of the provisions, essentially denying any woman recourse under law prosecuting rape within the institution of marriage.

Facts

• The RIT Foundation, along with the All-India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) and two other individuals, filed a petition challenging the marital rape exception (MRE) under Section 375, Exception 2 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860. The petition argued that the MRE should be struck down as it violated the constitutional rights of women and perpetuated gendered violence and discrimination.

Provisions involved

The following provisions were challenged:

• Section 375, Exception 2 of the IPC: This exception stated that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, who is not under 18 years of age, was not considered rape.
• Section 376B of the IPC: This section dealt with the punishment (2 years) for rape committed by a husband who was separated from his wife.
• Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):  This sections states that no court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under section 376B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) where the persons are in a marital relationship, except upon prima facie satisfaction of the facts which constitute the offence upon a complaint having been filed or made by the wife against the husband.

These abovementioned provisions remain in the same form in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 with different section numbers via Sections 63 and 67 of the BNS and Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Arguments advanced against MRE:

• • The MRE violated the constitutional goals of autonomy, dignity, and gender equality enshrined in Articles 15, 19(1) (a), and 21 of the Constitution.
  • The MRE treats women as the property of their husbands after marriage, denying them sexual autonomy, bodily integrity, and human dignity as guaranteed by Article 21.
  • The MRE violated the reasonable classification test of Article 14 as it created a distinction between married and unmarried women, denying equal rights to both.
  • The MRE should be struck down, and the punishment under Section 376B should also be invalidated as it discriminated between offences committed by separated husbands, actual husbands, and strangers.

Arguments for MRE’s constitutionality:

• • The crux of these arguments was twofold—court’s lack of power to read down the MRE thus creating a new offence and the fact that legislature had made a conscious decision to not label non-consensual sexual act between husband and wife as rape to protect the institution of marriage, by extension, families and progeny thus there is a legitimate object that the state is seeking to achieve via the MRE.

Justice C. Hari Shankar began his judgment by outlining the context and the specific challenge before the court. The petitioners argued that Exception 2 to Section 375, which states that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape, is unconstitutional. They contended that this exception violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively. The petitioners emphasized the importance of sexual autonomy and consent, arguing that the exception undermines these principles by immunizing husbands from prosecution for non-consensual sexual acts within marriage.

On original objective and the continuing legislative intent

Justice C. Hari Shankar addressed the original objective and the continuing legislative intent behind the Marital Rape Exception (MRE) in his judgment. He emphasised that the original objective of the MRE, as conceived in the 1860 IPC, was not based on the outdated “Hale dictum,” which suggested that marriage implied a wife’s consent to sexual intercourse with her husband. Instead, the MRE was rooted in the unique nature of the marital relationship and the need to balance individual rights with the preservation of the institution of marriage.

He stated:

“There is nothing to indicate that the ‘marital exception to rape,’ contained in the Exception to Section 375 of the IPC, or even in the proposed Exception in Clause 359 of the draft Penal Code, was predicated on the ‘Hale dictum,’ which refers to the following 1736 articulation, by Sir Matthew Hale: ‘The husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.’ Repeated allusion was made, by learned Counsel for the petitioners, to the Hale dictum. There can be no manner of doubt that this dictum is anachronistic in the extreme, and cannot sustain constitutional, or even legal, scrutiny, given the evolution of thought with the passage of time since the day it was rendered. To my mind, however, this aspect is completely irrelevant, as the Hale dictum does not appear to have been the raison d’être either of Section 359 of the draft Penal Code or Section 375 of the IPC.” [Para 13]

Justice C. Hari Shankar further explained that the continuing legislative intent behind retaining the MRE is to preserve the institution of marriage. He highlighted that the legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen to treat non-consensual sexual acts within marriage differently from those outside of marriage. He argued that this distinction is based on an intelligible differentia that has a rational nexus to the object of preserving the marital institution.

In essence, Justice C. Hari Shankar maintained that the continuing legislative intent behind the MRE is to protect the institution of marriage by distinguishing between non-consensual sexual acts within marriage and those outside of it. He emphasized that this distinction is not arbitrary but is based on a rational assessment of the unique dynamics of the marital relationship and the broader societal interests at stake.

On rational nexus and intelligible differentia

Justice C. Hari Shankar further analyses the concept of “intelligible differentia” and “rational nexus” in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution.

His interpretation rests on the foundational premise that the marital relationship is intrinsically distinct from all other forms of relationships, particularly in that it carries an inexorable incident of a legitimate expectation of sexual relations.

He articulates this position as follows:

“The primary distinction, which distinguishes the relationship of wife and husband, from all other relationships of woman and man, is the carrying, with the relationship, as one of its inexorable incidents, of a legitimate expectation of sex.”

This formulation forms the central pillar of his justification for treating non-consensual sexual acts within marriage differently from those outside of it. The judgment thus constructs an argument wherein marriage, as a legal institution, grants a presumption of consensual intimacy, differentiating it from other relationships where consent must be independently established.

He states:

“The legislature is free, therefore, even while defining offences, to recognise ‘degrees of evil.’ A classification based on the degree of evil, which may otherwise be expressed as the extent of culpability, would also, therefore, be valid. It is only a classification which is made without any reasonable basis which should be regarded as invalid. While the Court may examine whether the basis of classification is reasonable, once it is found to be so, the right of the legislature to classify has to be respected. Where there is no discernible basis for classification, however, or where the basis, though discernible, is unreasonable or otherwise unconstitutional, the provision would perish.” [Para 144]

Internal inconsistencies within the IPC framework

However, this reasoning, while maintaining internal consistency within the judge’s interpretative framework, encounters contradictions within the broader legal architecture of the IPC—particularly when juxtaposed with Section 376B, which criminalizes non-consensual intercourse between a husband and wife during separation.

Section 376B, which prescribes a lesser punishment (up to two years of imprisonment), nonetheless acknowledges that marital status alone does not create an absolute or irrevocable expectation of sexual relations. This provision, therefore, implicitly recognizes a wife’s autonomy and the necessity of consent, at least in specific contexts. The logical inconsistency emerges in two key aspects:

1. Recognition of autonomy in judicial and non-judicial separations

1. • Section 376B (punishment for rape by a husband during separation) does not require a court-ordered decree of separation for its application, meaning that a wife living separately from her husband—without a state-recognized order—still retains legal protection against non-consensual intercourse involving her own husband.
   • This directly contradicts the fundamental assumption of the MRE, which presumes that marriage inherently entails continuous consent to sexual relations. If the institution of marriage is so distinct and special, then why does the law acknowledge that consent is required during separation, even without formal judicial recognition? It is to ensure that all institutions are within the bounds of the Constitution and the value system it espouses. To this extent, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 added the current 376B (it was added as 376A but was later renumbered to 376B in 2013 after the Criminal Law Amendment, 2013).

2. The status of underage marital rape under IPC

1. • The inconsistency is further compounded by the fact that the IPC (via the Independent Thought vs Union of India judgement) criminalizes non-consensual intercourse with a wife below the age of 18, thereby recognizing the primacy of consent in certain marital contexts.
   • If the marital bond inherently carries an expectation of sexual relations, as the judgment asserts, then the legal system’s refusal to extend this principle to child marriages undermines the assumption of an absolute and uninterrupted sexual expectation within marriage. However, it has been extended to bring it in consonance with the constitutional principles in Independent Thought vs. Union of India.[2]

The judgment by Justice C. Hari Shankar relies on the intelligible differentia test to uphold the MRE, but the incoherence in its application becomes evident when viewed through the lens of Section 376B and related provisions. If marriage is a uniquely protected institution, then its sanctity should logically override even non-judicial separations—yet it does not. This suggests that when the law is compelled to acknowledge a wife’s individual autonomy, it does so in ways that directly conflict with the underlying justification for the MRE.

One could argue that a clear distinction exists in the punishments, as spousal rape during separation carries a lighter sentence (two years) compared to the harsher penalties under Section 375. However, this distinction collapses under scrutiny because:

• The recognition of consent during separation (including non-judicial separation) means that the “legitimate expectation of sex” argument is not absolute.
• The law, therefore, implicitly concedes that the marital institution does not override a wife’s right to autonomy in every instance.
• If the expectation of sexual relations within marriage were as absolute as the judgment suggests, then non-consensual intercourse during a non-court-ordered separation should not have been an offense at all.

The IPC’s contradictions — recognizing marital consent in separations (Section 376B) and criminalising underage marital rape — dismantle the “intelligible differentia” justifying the marital rape exception (MRE). By acknowledging that consent matters even within marriage, the law inadvertently concedes that marital status alone cannot negate autonomy. This fractures the MRE’s foundational logic: if a separated or underage wife retains constitutional rights to bodily integrity (Articles 14, 21), why does cohabitation erase them? The disparity in punishments (2 years vs. 10 for non-marital rape) further portrays a patriarchal hierarchy, implying a husband’s “claim” outweighs a wife’s dignity — a stance antithetical to Article 15’s prohibition of gender discrimination and to Constitutional Morality as espoused in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India.[3]

On Article 19 and 21

Justice C. Hari Shankar also addresses the argument that the exception violates Article 19(1)(a) by restricting a married woman’s right to sexual self-expression. He rejects this contention, stating that the exception does not compromise a woman’s right to consent or refuse consent to sexual relations. Instead, it merely recognises the complex interplay of rights and obligations within a marital relationship. Similarly, he dismisses the claim that the exception infringes upon Article 21, asserting that there is no fundamental right under the Constitution for a woman to prosecute her husband for rape in the context of marriage. It is here that Justice C. Hari Shankar makes deeply problematic observations that highlight and symbolise the underrepresentation of women and their voices, both in the society and in the judiciary that has contributed to emergence views such as follows.

He states as follows:

“If one were to apply, practically, what has been said by Mr. Rao of the crime of “rape”, the entire raison d’etre of the impugned Exception becomes apparent. As Mr. Rao correctly states, rape inflicts, on the woman, a “deep sense of some deathless shame”, and results in deep psychological, physical and emotional trauma, degrading the very soul of the victim. When one examines these aspects, in the backdrop of sexual assault by a stranger, vis-à-vis nonconsensual sex between husband and wife, the distinction in the two situations becomes starkly apparent. A woman who is waylaid by a stranger, and suffers sexual assault – even if it were to fall short of actual rape – sustains much more physical, emotional and psychological trauma than a wife who has, on one, or even more than one, occasion, to have sex with her husband despite her unwillingness. It would be grossly unrealistic, in my considered opinion, to treat these two situations as even remotely proximate. Acts which, when committed by strangers, result in far greater damage and trauma, cannot reasonably be regarded as having the same effect, when committed by one’s spouse, especially in the case of a subsisting and surviving marriage. The gross effects, on the physical and emotional psyche of a woman who is forced into non-consensual sex, against her will, by a stranger, cannot be said to visit a wife placed in the same situation vis-à-vis her husband. In any event, the distinction between the two situations is apparent. If, therefore, the legislature does not choose to attach, to the latter situation, the appellation of ‘rape’, which would apply in the former, the distinction is founded on an intelligible differentia, and does not call for judicial censure.” [Para 184]

Essentially, Justice C. Hari Shankar says that rape by a stranger is more psychologically damaging than rape by a husband of his wife.

For starters, this line of reasoning differentiates the intensity of suffering on the basis of the identity of the victim’s vis-a-vis her relation to the accused depending on whether the accused is the victim’s husband or a stranger. This exercise was unnecessary, if not deeply flawed and regressive.

Moreover, the same Section 376 which punishes rape has a stricter punishment for aggravated rape—which punishes rape by people in authority or relatives. Therefore, the law deems rape by people who are in positions of authority/trust more serious than other cases. This distinction should have prompted Justice C. Hari Shankar to delve into the issue with much more sensitivity to the suffering of a victim which it failed to do.

This is not to say that the relation between people in authority and the victims is same as marital relationship. The reason for quoting this example is to show that trauma cannot be said to be less or limited when a husband commits rape when compared to a when a stranger commits the offence.

Secondly, a simple search would have given Justice Hari Shanker studies and scholarly research that discussed how traumatic it is for women to be raped by their own husbands. From Diana Russell’s pioneering work on Rape in Marriage in the 1980s to recent studies on marital rape that reveal its devastating physical, reproductive, sexual, and psychological impact on women well into old age, there is well-established scholarship on the effects of marital rape. Given this, Justice C. Hari Shankar’s casual categorization of these traumas into different tiers is deeply concerning if not problematic (Bhat and Ullman, 2014;  Band-Winterstein T. and Avieli, 2022)[4][5]

On creation of a new offence

Justice C. Hari Shankar further considers the potential consequences of striking down the exception. He notes that doing so would create a new offence of “marital rape” and would necessitate a re-evaluation of the punishments prescribed under Section 376 of the IPC. He also highlights the practical difficulties that would arise in proving consent in cases of marital rape, given the private nature of the marital bedroom. The judge argues that these considerations weigh in favour of retaining the exception, as the legislature has the authority to make policy decisions regarding criminal law.

He maintained that the MRE is an integral part of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and that removing it would fundamentally alter the scope of the offense of rape. He argued that the MRE is not merely an exception but a critical component of the legal framework that defines the offense of rape.

He stated:

“Offences may legitimately be made perpetrator-specific or victim-specific. In the present case, Section 375, read as a whole, makes the act of ‘rape’ perpetrator-specific, by excepting, from its scope, sexual acts by a husband with his wife… The specification of the identity of the man, and his relationship vis-à-vis the woman, which presently finds place in the impugned Exception might, therefore, just as well have been part of the main provision.” [Para 203]

However, MRE itself is what makes the offense of rape perpetrator-specific, and removing it would merely restore the general applicability of the offence to all individuals, regardless of their marital status. This view is supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in Independent Thought vs Union of India. In this case, the same provision was dealt with. The Marital Rape Exception, before the Independent Thought judgement, applied to non-consensual sexual acts with wife who is 15 years and above. Since it contrasted the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the overall Constitution, the provision was read down to have it applied to only acts with a wife who is 18 and above thus protecting those women who are less than 18 years of age.

This is what the court said in Independent Thought addressing the concerns over it creating a new offence:

 One of the doubts raised was if this Court strikes down, partially or fully, Exception 2 to Section 375 Indian Penal Code, is the Court creating a new offence. There can be no cavil of doubt that the Courts cannot create an offence. However, there can be no manner of doubt that by partly striking down Section 375 Indian Penal Code, no new offence is being created. The offence already exists in the main part of Section 375 Indian Penal Code as well as in Section 3 and 5 of POCSO. What has been done is only to read down Exception 2 to Section 375 Indian Penal Code to bring it in consonance with the Constitution and POCSO. 

The judgement by Justice C. Hari Shankar does not deal with this prima facie similarity between the reasoning of Independent Thought and the reasoning of petitioners as to why reading down MRE does not create a new offence. He states as follows:

But, assert learned Counsel for the petitioners, by striking down the impugned Exception, this Court would not be creating an offence. They rely, for this purpose, on Independent Thought , in which it was held that the Supreme Court was not creating an offence by reading down the impugned Exception to apply to women below the age of 18. The analogy is between chalk and cheese. The situation that presents itself before us is not even remotely comparable to that which was before the Supreme Court in Independent Thought. We are not called upon to harmonise the impugned Exception with any other provision. The petitioners contend that the impugned Exception is outright unconstitutional and deserves to be guillotined. Would we not, by doing so, be creating a new offence?

We do not see any engagement with the proposition advanced by the petitioners or with the reasoning in Independent Thought. Striking down the marital exception would not create a new offence but would merely extend the application of Section 375 to all individuals, irrespective of marital status. Justice C. Hari Shankar’s concern—that such a move would turn previously non-offenders into offenders and that criminalization is the legislature’s prerogative—remains unreasoned when examined in light of the approach taken in Independent Thought.

Conclusion

Justice C. Hari Shankar’s judgement is a mix of genuine judicial restraint and a deeply flawed reasoning that puts women and their autonomy on the back burner, for the purpose of patriarchal notions of desire in the garb of sanctity of marriage. His reasoning after a point goes from flawed to problematic when he states the following: “Any assumption that a wife, who is forced to have sex with her husband on a particular occasion when she does not want to, feels the same degree of outrage as a woman raped by a stranger, in my view, is not only unjustified, but is ex facie unrealistic.” [Para 130]

While he is entitled to present his judicial opinion, he does not provide any reasoning for differentiating the trauma of marital rape from that of rape by a stranger. We do not know if he relied on any survey, or on what basis he came to his conclusion. The assertion lacks empirical evidence or scholarly backing and instead relies solely on personal assumptions, which are disconnected from established research on marital rape trauma.

Justice C. Hari Shankar’s wisdom in exercising judicial restraint is robust, tenable and sound when it relates to the argument that such change must come from the legislature. While it might not be entirely agreeable, there is a level of doctrinal firmness to it.

However, his views on marriage, expectations of sex and autonomy of women struggle to find their ground in the concepts of constitutional morality, ethical logic but flow with the flaws of regressive outlook on what a marriage is. These flaws stem not only from an inadequate understanding of how the law attributes sanctity to marriage but also from a superficial and reductive view of the emotional and psychological trauma endured by married women when their trust is violated by their own husbands through marital rape. In this sense, the flaws not only are legal, but also moral.

The novel contribution of this judgement is not the exercise of judicial restraint but an expression of outdated perception of marriage—one that subordinates constitutional morality to patriarchal tradition.

In the next part, the judgement of Justice Rajiv Shakdher declaring the MRE to be unconstitutional and his reasoning in answering some pertinent questions raised by Justice C. Hari Shankar will be discussed.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1404

[2] [2017] 10 SCC 800

[3] (2018) 10 SCC 1

[4] Bhat, M. and Ullman, S.E., 2014. Examining marital violence in India: Review and recommendations for future research and practice. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(1), pp.57-74.

[5] Band-Winterstein, T. and Avieli, H., 2022. The lived experience of older women who are sexually abused in the context of lifelong IPV. Violence against women, 28(2), pp.443-464.

Also Read:

When marriage is tyranny: Justice Shakdher’s judgment reads down the marital rape exception as a constitutional imperative

Related:

D*ck or fist

A Licence to Violate: Chhattisgarh HC’s ruling on marital rape exposes a legal travesty’

The post How Justice C Harishankar, in upholding the exception to marital rape, delivered a reasoning fir for the dark ages appeared first on SabrangIndia.