"I will take two days. This (issue) has social ramifications," the law officer said. A counsel for the petitioners said they would like to argue for three days.

"Then it can be listed for hearing in April next year!" the CJI quipped and later said the pleas would be listed for hearing in mid-October.

Poll

Did you celebrate Children`s Day with your child today?

Yes 33.33%

No 33.33%

Not yet 33.33%

Submit

View All In Poll

Earlier, senior advocate Indira Jaising had mentioned the plea for an urgent hearing.

The constitutional validity of an exception clause of Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is under challenge as it exempts a husband from being prosecuted for rape for having non-consensual sexual intercourse with the spouse if she happens to be an adult.

"We have to resolve the matters concerning marital rape," the bench said. The CJI had said these matters are to be heard by a three-judge bench and will be listed for hearing after the five-judge constitution benches conclude hearing some listed cases.

On January 16, the top court sought the Centre's response to the petitions pertaining to the criminalisation of marital rape and the IPC provision on it.

The Centre, represented by Mehta, had said the issue has legal as well as social implications, and the government would like to file its response to the petitions.
One plea has been filed in relation to the Delhi High Court's split verdict of May 11, 2022, on the issue.

Justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar had concurred on granting the petitioners a certificate of leave to appeal in the Supreme Court as the matter involved substantial questions of law which required a decision by the top court.

However, Justice Shakdher, who headed the division bench, favoured striking down the marital rape exception for being "unconstitutional" and said it would be "tragic if a married woman's call for justice is not heard even after 162 years" since the enactment of the IPC. Justice Shankar, on the other hand, said the exception under the rape law is not "unconstitutional and was based on an intelligible differentia". The concept of intelligible differentia distinguishes people or things grouped together from those that are left out.

Another plea has been filed by a man against the Karnataka High Court verdict that paved the way for his prosecution for allegedly raping his wife. The Karnataka High Court had on March 23 last year said exempting a husband from the allegations of rape and unnatural sex with his wife runs against Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever