[Marital Rape] “Will Bring Home Justice For Women In This Case”: Snr Adv Karuna Nundy | SC Relisted Matter After 4 Weeks

The Supreme Court of India Today (Oct 23), postponed the hearing of multiple petitions that seek the criminalization of marital rape in the country. The hearing, overseen by a Bench composed of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was deferred after the counsel from both sides laid out the time required for presenting their arguments. According to the submissions made by the lawyers, each side will need at least one full day to make their case. This led the Court to conclude that a judgment cannot be delivered before CJI Chandrachud’s retirement, which is scheduled for November 10, 2024.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, postponed the hearing of multiple petitions that seek the criminalization of marital rape in the country. The hearing, overseen by a Bench composed of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was deferred after the counsel from both sides laid out the time required for presenting their arguments.

According to the submissions made by the lawyers, each side will need at least one full day to make their case.

This led the Court to conclude that a judgment cannot be delivered before CJI Chandrachud’s retirement, which is scheduled for November 10, 2024.

Chief Justice Chandrachud acknowledged the time required for the proceedings, stating,

“Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan says he will require one day. This will be followed by submissions by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, and other counsel will take a day each… hence it will not be possible to complete hearing in the foreseeable future.”

The Bench further signaled that the case would be taken up by a new Bench after four weeks.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta emphasized the complexity of the matter, remarking,

“It’s a polycentric problem. It’s not our case that intercourse can happen without consent… this will require a day of arguments.”

In response, CJI Chandrachud noted the progress made thus far:

“We have heard submissions on part of the petitioner by Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy and Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves… Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan submits that a day will be required for his arguments.”

The Bench further acknowledged that SG Mehta and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising would also take a day each for their arguments.

Given the detailed nature of the submissions, CJI Chandrachud stated,

“We are of the view that it will not be possible to conclude the hearing in a foreseeable future. We relist it for…,”

-leaving the next date of the hearing unspecified.

At this point, Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy interjected, suggesting a faster resolution:

“This matter can be definitely finished by Friday evening if people cooperate and remain disciplined.”

She also made a poignant remark on the CJI’s legacy in advancing women’s rights, asserting,

“My lords’ legacy in so many judgments for women will bring home justice for women in this case.”

The proceedings continue to be watched closely, as the outcome could have significant implications for the recognition and protection of women’s rights in India.

“Your legacy would demand that this case be heard for the millions of women.”

-Sr. Adv. Nundy

Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy made an impassioned plea, underscoring the significance of the case. Addressing the bench, she emphasized the far-reaching consequences of the decision, not just for the immediate parties involved, but for the millions of women whose lives could be affected by the ruling.

“Your Lordship’s legacy will be remembered, and such statements are unnecessary.”

-SG

Solicitor General (SG) expressed his views regarding the importance of not overstating the court’s role. While acknowledging the significance of the case, the SG cautioned against framing the judgment in such monumental terms.

“But all arguments must be heard. List the matter after four weeks.”

-CJI Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, presiding over the case, carefully considered both sides’ arguments. In response to the discussions, the CJI affirmed the need for thorough deliberation. He emphasized the importance of giving every argument its due weight and ensuring that all sides are heard before arriving at a decision.

Reinforcing the court’s commitment to a fair and balanced approach. His words underscored the necessity of patience and deliberation in cases of such magnitude, where the outcome could have a lasting impact on society.

BACKGROUND

Previously, on Thursday, October 17, a three-hour session took place regarding petitions aimed at criminalizing marital rape.

This case being considered by a bench that includes Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.

There are two petitioners in this matter, and they are being represented by Advocates Colin Gonsalves and Karuna Nundy, who presented their case during today’s proceedings.

In the earlier session, Advocate Karuna Nundy contended that a husband is exempt from punishment for forcing sexual relations solely because the victim is his wife.

She stated,

“This is a fight against the people and patriarchy, which is why we have turned to the court.”

Advocate Colin Gonsalves highlighted that Nepal already criminalized marital rape, emphasizing that such legislation does not threaten the institution of marriage. He argued that it is abuse and rape within marriage that truly bring dishonour to this institution.

He stated,

“If a woman (wife) says no to sexual relations, it means no.”

In the last hearing on October 3, the government opposed the petitions, arguing that criminalizing marital rape could have a negative impact on marital relationships.

Under the exception clause of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), sexual intercourse between a man and his wife (if she is not a minor) is not considered rape. The BNS maintains this stance in Exception 2 to Section 63 (rape).

The Supreme Court previously, on January 16, 2023, sought the Centre’s response to petitions challenging the IPC provision, which protects husbands from prosecution for forcible sexual intercourse with adult wives. In May 2023, the court also issued notice to the Centre regarding a similar plea challenging the BNS provision.

The Centre has highlighted the legal and social implications of the matter, and one of the cases before the Supreme Court stems from a split verdict delivered by the Delhi High Court on May 11, 2022.

Additionally, a man prosecuted for marital rape following a Karnataka High Court order is appealing the exemption of husbands from allegations of rape, which the court ruled violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Public interest litigations (PILs) have also been filed challenging the constitutionality of the exception under Section 375 of the IPC.

CASE TITLE:
[Hrishikesh Sahoo v. Union of India and Anr]

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Marital Rape

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES