‘Half-hearted reply an injustice’: Centre asks HC for time to reply in marital rape hearing

“A half-hearted reply” may affect the lives of several citizens, the Union government told the Delhi high court on Monday, as it sought more time to respond categorically on whether it was in favour of doing away with the exception in the rape law that provides immunity to husbands from the offence of marital rape.

A bench of justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar, while hearing pleas seeking to criminalise marital rape, was informed by solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, that the issue should not be seen from a “microscopic angle” and several considerations would be considered by the government while formulating its stand.

The court gave the Centre 10 days to clarify its position.

“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 lordships. This would also perhaps need consultations with other stakeholders,” Mehta said.

The SG also said it will not be possible for the Union government to respond immediately on the issue, particularly when there is no imminent threat to someone. He sought 10 days to have a detailed consultation with stakeholders and place the government stand before the court.

“I feel I would be doing an injustice to the citizens of India if I put the reply in a half-hearted way,” the SG submitted.

The court, however, said the issue of criminalising marital rape is not going to end in the high court and whichever party felt aggrieved by its judgment, will challenge it in a superior court.

“...come back to me in 10 days. I know you can if you want. Beyond that, it would become difficult for me,” the court said.

Exception of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) decriminalises marital rape and mandates that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15, is not rape.

On Monday, senior advocate Rebecca John, the amicus curiae in the matter, completed her arguments. She submitted that 498A (domestic violence) cannot be a substitute for 375 (2) as it is a different offence.

While concluding her arguments, John said she received a “lot of hate mail” in connection with the case and was even asked to recuse from the matter because she has an opinion on the subject.

To this, the court said that if having a view was a ground for recusal, then judges would have to recuse themselves from every case. The hearing will continue on Tuesday.