The Supreme Court in the case Ruth Manorama v. UoI, wherein the bench comprising of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed and has issued notice in another petition challenging the validity of the marital rape exception. Earlier, the Top Court had listed the matters concerning the validity of the marital rape exception in the second week on January 2023. In the present case, the Petitioner, a Dalit anti-caste and women’s rights activist, the social worker and General Secretary of Women’s Voice, Karnataka has challenged the exception on the ground that it violates Article 14, Article 15(1), Article 19(1)(a), and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The counsel, Advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for the petitioner submitted that there being a judgement in a matter called Saroj Rani which was decided in 1984. In the said matter, my lords had said that Article 14 of the Constitution will not apply in marital relationship. Consequently, In Puttaswamy, the bench of Justice Chelameswar had said citing Saroj Rani that this issue is unclear and left it to be decided on another occasion- whether Article 14 of the Constitution, privacy will apply to personal associations or not. The bench headed by CJI stated that, the you are challenging the validity of a central law on the ground that reading the marital rape exception would amount to a breach of Article 14. Thus, it does not raise the issue of whether Article 14 will apply to personal relations or not. The question being that Article 14 does apply to statute. And we have to test the validity of that exception with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution. In the matter, a notice has been issued by the bench and has tagged it with the other petitions concerning the validity of the marital rape exception. The petitioner in the plea states that the doctrine of coverture that underpins the impunity afforded to married men vide the marital rape exception also seeks to maintain caste hierarchies and “pure” kinship structures. Therefore, such violent policing of women’s bodies further caste-based assault particularly in the experience of Dalit women who are treated as objects of sexual exploitation by the Savarna men that they marry. In the plea the petitioner also seeks to bring this intersectional experience to this Hon’ble Court vide the present petition. The plea stated that the exception violates women’s rights to bodily integrity, decisional autonomy, and dignity, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court while stating of that these rights are protected through specific laws, including criminal law, the plea further argued that by publicly stating that rape within marriage is not “rape”, the exception undermines married women’s consent to sex, and violates the right of the women to decisional autonomy. The counsel, Sr. Adv. Indira Jaising also stated that the Karnataka matter has to be heard separately. As it is not regarding validity of exception but the interpretation of the exception. I don’t have any problem but there being also the issue of POCSO in my matter. Thus, the validity of restitution of conjugal right is already pending before the court. The said issue will be decided separately. Howvere, the court observed that she was referring to the challenge against the Karnataka High Court judgment which held that a husband will be liable for the offence under Section 376 IPC if he rapes his wife. An affidavit has been filed by the State of Karnataka in the Supreme Court supporting the said High Court judgment. The bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud stated that there being a reason we’re not doing that. This court want your presence when the main matters are heard and We won’t tag it but keep it on the same day.
