Independent Thought vs. Union of India||Case Summary|| 2017 10 SCC 800 ||Marital Rape Exceptions

Marital Rape Exceptions

FACTS

Independent Thought, a child rights organization, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which allowed marital rape of girls aged between 15 and 18 years. The petition argued that this exception violated the rights of minor girls under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.

THE PETITIONERS CONTENDED THAT

1. The POCSO Act criminalizes sexual intercourse with a child below 18 years, whereas Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC allowed a husband to have intercourse with his wife if she was above 15 years, creating a legal contradiction.

2. The exception violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Non-Discrimination), and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

3. Child marriages, though discouraged by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006, still occurred in India, exposing minor girls to forced sexual intercourse.

ISSUES

1. Whether Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, which permitted marital rape of girls aged 15 to 18 years, was unconstitutional?

2. Whether the exception violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21?

3. Whether the POCSO Act and the IPC exception were contradictory, and if so, which law should prevail?

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 14 & 15: Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination.

2. Article 21: Right to life, including dignity and bodily autonomy.

3. Section 375 IPC: Defines rape but contained Exception 2, allowing sexual intercourse with a minor wife (above 15 years).

4. POCSO Act, 2012: Criminalizes sexual intercourse with children under 18 years.

5. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Prohibits child marriage but does not automatically void it.

JUDGEMENT

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, struck down Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC as unconstitutional.

Key rulings:

1. Exception 2 violates Article 14 because it discriminates against minor girls based on marital status.

2. Exception 2 contradicts POCSO and Article 21, as it denies minor girls the right to bodily autonomy and dignity.

3. The PCMA does not validate child marriages; therefore, the protection granted under IPC was unjustified.

4. Declared that husbands engaging in sexual intercourse with wives below 18 years will be guilty of rape.

5. However, the Court did not rule on marital rape of adult women, limiting the scope of the judgment.

SIGNIFICANCE

1. Historic step towards recognizing marital rape in India, at least for minor girls.

2. Strengthened child rights and gender justice by removing a discriminatory legal provision.

3. Harmonized IPC with POCSO, ensuring that all minors receive legal protection against sexual abuse.

4. Though the ruling did not criminalize marital rape for adult women, it set the stage for future legal debates on the issue.

This case remains a landmark judgment in child rights and women’s rights jurisprudence in India.

Vinita Pathak