The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday affirmed that marriage cannot result in an “extinction of individual autonomy” for a woman, while agreeing to examine the long-standing marital rape immunity.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, listed the batch of constitutional petitions for final hearing within three weeks. The legal challenge disputes Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (now Exception 2 to Section 63 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), which immunises a man from being prosecuted for rape against his adult wife.
While the Union Government maintained in its affidavit that altering the statute could destabilise marital institutions and requires a broader social approach, the apex court confirmed it will first scrutinise an appeal against a Karnataka High Court verdict that permitted a husband’s prosecution where his wife was allegedly treated as a “sex slave”.
Balancing Bodily Integrity
During the proceedings, the Bench underscored the vital distinction between upholding personal rights and interpreting written penal codes.
Representing the survivor in the Karnataka matter, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted that prosecution could proceed under the existing legal framework without directly striking down the exception, given the grave nature of the abuse. In response, Justice Joymalya Bagchi acknowledged the moral force of the argument, stating: “We fully appreciate the submission that there is no question of marriage resulting in an extinction of individual autonomy. Point well taken. Now see the law as it stands. It is a penal law… before a person can be prosecuted, rightly or wrongly, a constitutional court has to render a verdict that the exception is unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary.”
The court further pointed out that violent domestic conduct does not enjoy total blanket immunity, as husbands remain liable under separate penal provisions addressing cruelty, grievous hurt, and culpable homicide.
A Lingering Legal Void
The constitutional questions have been in motion since May 2022, when the Delhi High Court delivered a divided verdict on the criminalisation of marital rape.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher ruled Exception 2 unconstitutional for violating women’s fundamental rights to equality and bodily privacy, whereas Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld the exception, finding it founded on an “intelligible differentia” aimed at preserving conjugal life. In parallel, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court had previously declined to quash rape charges against an abusive husband, asserting that no statutory exception can become a licence for violence. Across successive responses, the Central Government has cautioned the judiciary against judicially striking down the exception, arguing that criminalisation within the marital sphere carries far-reaching social ramifications that belong strictly to the legislative domain.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
A truly egalitarian society cannot measure human dignity through the prism of marital status. While the legal nuances of statutory text and legislative remit demand rigorous examination, empathy and fundamental fairness tell us that bodily autonomy is inherent to every human being.
Wedlock must be grounded in mutual trust, companionship, and voluntary consent, not an archaic doctrine where marital vows imply a permanent surrender of self-determination. True sanctity of an institution does not lie in sheltering violence behind closed doors, but in fostering homes rooted in mutual respect, kindness, and peaceful coexistence. How can we as a nation foster deeper awareness around consent within our domestic spaces, ensuring our laws safeguard bodily dignity for all?
Also Read: 70% Varthur Urdu School Classrooms Shut Over Falling Roofs, CJP Flags Student Safety
