Domestic abuse is a chronic crisis throughout India, and this has only intensified during recent decades. In India, nearly 70 % of people were victims of domestic abuse. As per the report, in India, a woman is raped every 16 minutes, and every four minutes, she experiences cruelty at the hands of her in-laws. The document was troubling, but not entirely unexpected. A 2015-16 National Family Health Survey data analysis shows that an approximate 99.1 percent of incidents of sexual harassment go unreported and that the average Indian woman is 17 times more likely than others to experience sexual abuse by their spouse. Different legislation aimed at shielding women from domestic sexual assault and sexual abuse has largely remained unsuccessful, despite serious changes to the penal code.Anyway, what happens if legislation empowers the culprits with immunity and jeopardizes the victims?
Yes, the contradiction described above is not a mere myth but resides in the Indian Penal Code as a truth. One of the Indian legal administration’s most disturbing and oppressive clauses is that of marital rape. Which is perfectly legal in Indian criminal statutes. The definition of rape in Section 375 covers all types of sexual assault concerning non-consensual intercourse with a woman. It points out in some detail the various circumstances in which permission is either non-existent or vitiated. An exception occurs at the end of the clause of the section. It implies, enough, “Sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.” According to existing legislation, a woman is presumed to give her unconditional consent to have sexual intercourse with her husband after getting into a marriage. Although forced sexual intercourse in marriage is considered a criminal act in practically every country in the world. India is among the handful of counties that have not yet criminalized marital rape.
Actively there have been writ petitions in the Hon’ble Supreme court and High courts in India concerning the constitutionality of that very exemption. Section 375 (Exception) effectively provides a clear description not only between consent granted by a married and unmarried woman, as well as between married women under the age of 15 and over the age of 15 years. Such a designation isn’t really subject to the ‘comprehensible differential’ test and is, thus, prima facie contrary to the right to equality listed in article 14. In 2017, Independent Thought, an NGO, filed a PIL questioning this incomprehensible distinction and arguing that this defense should also be afforded to married women over 15 years of age. To a considerable point, the Supreme Court complied with these averages and increased the age cap under Section 375 from 15 years to 18 years. This decision, in particular, led to a spike in the number of other writs challenging the constitutionality of the exception itself.
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENSURED BY THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of India Under Article 14 safeguards that, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” While our Constitution provides equality for all, Indian criminal law is discriminative towards female victims who have been raped and assaulted by their spouses. When in the 1860s IPC was drafted, a married woman was not known to be a separate legal body. Rather, she was deemed to be her spouses’ possession inspired by the theory of Coverture. Coverture is a legal doctrine which was established in the common law of England, where after marriage the rights of women cease to exist and duties were assumed by those of her spouse, in compliance with the legal standing of women were merged with that of husband. During the drafting of the IPC, India was under British rule and its criminal laws were strongly influenced by English rules of Victorian standards. Under Section 375 there is an exception, which effectively exempts the conduct of husbands against their spouses from being called “rape” offence, which was conceptualized on the basis of Victorian patriarchal traditions that did not consider men and women as equivalent.
As of recent, we have moved towards equality, somewhat at least, to protect the rights of women from sexual harassment and rape, but we have failed miserably in proving equal rights to married women entrusted under article 14. The exception under section 375 discriminates against married women by excluding them equal protection from abuse and sexual assault. It categorizes women on the grounds of their marital status which immunizes the actions of men against their spouses. By doing so, it makes it possible for married women to be abused for no reason except their marital status.The categorization created in section 375, between married and unmarried women is indeed contrary to Article 14 because as far as the difference is concerned it has no reasonable connection with the fundamental intent of the article, which negates all kinds of discrimination.
Therefore, any statute that defines a designation that is inappropriate or incidental to the objectives of the law is found to be beyond the legislative structure. As for what is fair, it will still focus on what the judges thought and a new interpretation of law and rationality will arise with any new generation of judges, thereby rendering the Constitution a living text. In order to minimize gender-biased discriminatory care, it is important to stop prejudices based on gender. It is also important that caution be taken when applying the equality test so that the stereotyping enforced by the patriarchal system does not predetermine what is fair classification section 375 of the IPC criminalizes the offense of rape and protects a woman against forceful sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. The provision hereby grants women immunity from criminal attacks on bodily autonomy and shows the role of the State in punishing those who abuse this bodily autonomy. It is also correct to claim that it aims to preserve the right of choice of women as independent persons.
The Supreme Court in its judgment in Anwar Ali Sarkar and Budhan Choudhary noted that just about every categorization under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution shall be limited to a test of reasonableness which may be carried only if the definition of any categorization has a fair connection with the purpose which the act aims to accomplish. Exception thwarts the intent of Section 375 of protecting women and prosecuting those involved in the barbaric acts of rape.
Married women require protection under the law in their private worlds, just as men and single women do. Although the majority of section 375 of the IPC remains concerned with maintaining a victim’s right. On the other hand, such a right is taken back after marriage and the focus of the statute moves back to protecting the offender of the crime of rape. It completely removes the freedom of conscience of a woman and indeed essentially deprives her of personal rights and her identity. The designation is therefore redundant, incoherent, and in violation of the mandate laid down in Article 14. For the purposes of the law, the removal of the protection of Section 375 of the IPC from victims of the crime of rape purely on the grounds of their marital status is meaningless.
The repercussions of rape are the same for each victim. In fact, section 375 allows husbands to engage in sexual intercourse with their wives forcibly, as they realize that their actions are not deterred or penalized by statute. Since no logical connection has been drawn for the distinction formed between married and unmarried thus the test of reasonableness doesn’t exist which is contrary to Article 14. Besides that, it is increasingly difficult for those married women who are economically and morally dependent on their husbands to avoid oppressive circumstances.
Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution states that “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”. The discrimination in section 375 is the antithesis to article 15(1). The onus is on the state to respect the constitution and put an end to discrimination done towards thousands of married women every day.
Marital rape which is not criminalized under any law in India is a blatant abuse of article 21 as it gives no rights to women to protect herself from being raped by her own husband. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is one the most important part of the constitution which upholds that any citizen or alien being in India is entitled to the Right to life and personal liberty. The Apex court has widened the aspects of article 21 by interpreting it beyond and between the lines of the article. In recent times the court has interpreted that right to health, right to dignity even during performing death rites, safe environment, and clean air, all fall under the ambit of article 21.
In Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, it was held that privacy is a fundamental right and also covers decisional privacy reflected by an ability to make intimate decisions primarily consisting of one’s sexual or procreative nature and decisions in respect of intimate relations. The court in the aforementioned case did not draw a difference between married or unmarried women and anyone else, the court mentioned it for each and every citizen of India. Thus, any kind of forced sexual intercourse is an infringement of a fundamental right, and the right to privacy and is not bound by the theory of Coverture. The supreme court ruled that privacy starts with the human body and that the principle of cognitive autonomy is at the core of the right to privacy – such that, it is the right of each person to determine when and for what reason his body will be used. And as people cannot sell themselves to slavery, nor should they be assumed to have waived their right to decision-making at the altar of marriage.
Earlier, privacy was conveyed by expressions that the state cannot access the household or access relations. Thus, the men were immune to oppression, unjust power, and violence within the house of an individual.
Should the state really penetrate the sphere of the home? A reaction to this is a “yes”. In the cases of cruelty, divorce, and dowry, it already does, then why put the most atrocious and egregious offense beyond the control of the State and legislation. Why does the marital rape zone ought to stay outside its pale? At the time of the union, the state that does not involve itself but serves as an arbitrator after divorce must secure the right of a woman to her body. With privacy judgment, the scope of privacy has also ventured inside the family and houses of individuals, and communities. However, criminalizing marital rape is just not an issue relating to the privacy of one’s bedroom, it involves ensuring dignity, freedom, and free consent as much as in a bedroom as in a public space.
CONCLUSION
The continued immunity from the scope of statutory law from marital rape sustains the presumption that the wife is the sole property of the spouse. As stated by Katherine O’ Donnovan: “Its immunity from the purview of the criminal law is explained on the grounds that the female victim is a wife. This justification can be understood in the context of the dominant familial ideology and female sexuality which treats a wife as property and as having no sexual agency or decision making in sexual activity within the marital contract”.
It is proposed that in India, marital rape should be criminalized, because that can be done by applying an approach to violence against women based on individual rights. Indian women’s groups have managed to raise public consciousness and introducing domestic violence laws, but marital rape has not been fully criminalized by removing the difference between marital rape and rape.Yet marital rape will not be criminalized or prosecuted until lawmakers and the Society respects the personal interests of women within the marital framework.
Principles on the sexuality of women, and therefore ideas on non-marital and marital sexual violence in Indian culture, stem from the notion of gender, embarrassment and family’s reputation, rather than the rights of women and individual autonomy. If the lawmakers see rape and sexual assault against a woman and her individual and bodily dignity and humanity, then marital rape and penalty would be a legal offense.
In aims to introduce a changes to the current legislation, we can use a semantic method to individual rights in working to criminalize marital rape in India, even though marital rape is not a government’s problem until society and lawmakers realize that women have individual rights in married life.
A very recent TV show “Criminal Justice: Behind the closed doors” written by Apurva Asrani shows a lawyer who was murdered by his wife late in the night with a knife. The lawyer was one of the “best” lawyers and was a very respected member of society. As the murder mystery folds, it is discovered that the lawyer was raping his wife for last many years and was indulging in non-consensual sex. Due to the taboo and “SHAME”, the victim never opened up.
The plot of the show has an uncanny resemblance to reality. Most of the rapes are not done by strangers, it is someone familiar and known to the victim, owing to such familiarity, the victim is scared to speak up. In the case of marital rape, the victim is none other than the wife and it is seen almost all times that they don’t speak up due to fear of disbanding of the family and the SHAME that it will bring upon them in society.
The exception in article 375 for marital rape is arbitrary and gives undue advantage to men. Getting away with this exception is the only way to let such victims speak up and make sure the accused are well dealt with by the law. Striking this will not be an infringement of privacy rather it will reinstate the foundation of article 21 by giving dignity and much-needed equality to the women who are subject to marital rape.
For the women who have been abused and assaulted, marriage for them is-:“Abandon all ye hope who enter here”
