Marital rape is when one spouse forces the other into sexual activity without their consent. The act disregards the fundamental principles of mutual respect and consent that should be the foundation of any relationship.

The Constitution of India embodies a promise of equality, justice, and fundamental rights for all its citizens. Central to this document is the commitment to gender equality, safeguarded by Articles 14, 15, and 21. Nevertheless, the legal framework governing marital rape in India starkly contradicts these constitutional principles. While Indian law has made progressive strides in various aspects of gender rights, it has not fully confronted the issue of marital rape, revealing a considerable need for legal reform.

Constitutional Guarantees and Gender Equality:
The ideals of gender equality are articulated in the following constitutional provisions:

• Article 14 guarantees all individuals "equality before the law" and "equal protection of the law."
• Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• Article 21 secures the right to life and personal liberty, which has been broadly interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass the rights to live with dignity, exercise personal autonomy, and ensure bodily integrity.

In spite of these protections, Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code maintains an exception for marital rape. This section defines rape as non-consensual sexual intercourse but states that sexual relations between a husband and wife cannot be classified as rape if the wife is over 18. This legal loophole not only permits marital rape but also infringes upon the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity for women, thereby treating married women differently from their unmarried counterparts. Indian courts have long addressed issues related to gender equality, personal dignity, and bodily integrity, yet marital rape remains largely neglected in their rulings:

Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court scrutinized the exception found in Section 375 of the IPC, which permits marital intercourse if the wife is older than 15 years. The Court deemed this exception unconstitutional for minor wives (those under 18), establishing that sexual relations with a minor wife, irrespective of marriage, constitute statutory rape.

Although this ruling specifically addresses child marriage, it represents a significant move toward acknowledging that marriage does not automatically imply consent for sexual activity. By abolishing the exception for minor wives, the Court indirectly contested the broader notion that marriage grants a free pass for non-consensual sex.

State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991)

In this ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that even sex workers have the right to refuse sexual intercourse, emphasizing that "even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy, and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes." This judgment highlights that consent is essential in sexual relationships and must be honored. If a sex worker can refuse consent, then a wife's consent should also be regarded as vital, even in marriage. It reaffirms that all women possess the right to bodily autonomy, regardless of their social status or situation.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

This pivotal case established guidelines to safeguard against sexual harassment in the workplace, interpreting Articles 14, 15, and 21 to promote gender justice. The Court recognized that sexual harassment infringes upon a woman's rights to equality, life, and dignity. As marital rape constitutes a form of sexual violence, it deeply violates these constitutional safeguards. However, the law fails to extend this principle to the private domain of marriage.

Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009)

In this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged a woman's right to make choices regarding her reproductive health as part of her personal liberty under Article 21. The Court held that reproductive rights encompass the right to decline sexual activity and make decisions about one's own body. This ruling reinforces the notion of bodily autonomy, emphasizing the right to refuse sex, even within the context of marriage. Marital rape undermines this autonomy, reducing a woman's body to that of her husband's possession, thus infringing upon her constitutional rights.

Judicial Recommendations and Unresolved Issues:

While Indian courts have recognized and expanded women's autonomy, dignity, and privacy, the specific matter of marital rape remains largely overlooked in judicial discourse. Various legal committees have made attempts to bridge this gap, but their recommendations have not resulted in impactful legal reforms:

Justice Verma Committee (2013)

Established after the horrific 2012 Delhi gang rape, the Justice Verma Committee proposed the criminalization of marital rape. The committee argued that marriage should not serve as a justification for sexual violence and that legal frameworks must acknowledge women's autonomy and dignity across all contexts, including marriage. Unfortunately, the committee's proposals have not led to any significant change.

Law Commission of India (2000)

In its 172nd Report, the Law Commission also advocated for the removal of the marital rape exception, noting that the existing law contradicts constitutional protections for women.

The Constitutional Paradox:

The failure to criminalize marital rape is in direct opposition to constitutional guarantees of gender equality and personal liberty:

• Article 14 (Equality Before the Law): The legal exception for marital rape discriminates against married women, depriving them of equal protection under the law.
• Article 15 (Non-discrimination on Grounds of Sex): The marital rape exception fosters gender-based discrimination by treating a woman's consent as conditional on her marital status.
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Marital rape infringes upon the right to live with dignity and personal liberty by stripping women of the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies within marriage.

Indian courts have made meaningful progress in acknowledging bodily autonomy, gender equality, and personal dignity across various sectors. However, the marital rape exception continues to undermine these constitutional commitments for married women. The failure to criminalize marital rape contradicts India's international obligations and detracts from its standing as a nation committed to gender equality.

The legal system must evolve to reflect the shifting dynamics of gender relations and recognize consent as a fundamental principle of sexual interaction, even within marriage. It is imperative that society begins to regard gender justice as a tangible reality rather than merely an abstract constitutional aspiration.

Written By: Pragya Singh