Supreme Court Awaits Centre's Reply Before Scheduling Marital Rape Hearing
SC will hear the Centre's preliminary objection on September 9 before scheduling a hearing on petitions challenging the marital rape exception in criminal law.
The Supreme Court on Monday said it would first hear the central government's response on September 9 before fixing a date for hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the marital rape exception under criminal law.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant was hearing a mention by senior advocate Indira Jaising, who sought a fixed hearing date in November for the batch. She noted that the Centre had only filed a preliminary objection and that the parties had not yet exchanged petitions.
"Union has not filed a reply, except a preliminary objection. I am asking for a fixed date of hearing in November. We have not exchanged the petitions. We don't know the commonality or differences," Jaising said.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, responded, "Matter is listed on Wednesday (September 9). Union will appear. We will see what they say, and then we will fix a suitable date accordingly."
Senior advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for another petitioner, suggested the matter could be fixed for any date to allow completion of pleadings.
The petitions challenge the exception under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) from July 1, 2024. Under the old law, sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, if she was not a minor, was not rape. The corresponding exception under Section 63 of the BNS similarly states that sexual acts by a man with his wife, aged not under eighteen, is not rape.
The Supreme Court had sought the Centre's response on the IPC provision in January 2023 and later issued notice on a similar plea challenging the BNS provision.
The case also relates to a split verdict by the Delhi High Court in May 2022. While one judge favoured striking down the exception as unconstitutional, the other held it was based on an intelligible differentia. The Karnataka High Court has previously held that such an exemption violates Article 14 of the Constitution.