CRIMINALIZATION OF MARITAL RAPE IN INDIA: A CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
Shashwat Gupta, B.A. LL. B (Hons), Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (India)
Saurav Sanjay, B.B.A LL. B (Hons), Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (India)
Megha Prabhakar, B.B.A LL. B (Hons), Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (India)
Still stuck from British times, India lets married men escape rape charges if their wife is above eighteen. Section 63, Exception 2 in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 keeps this rule alive. Marriage doesn’t mean surrendering control over one’s body. That idea clashes with what the Constitution promises – fair treatment under Article 14 and personal freedom under Article 21. Privacy matters. So does self-respect. Bodily rights stand firm even after wedding vows. Back in 2017, the Supreme Court made it clear through the Puttaswamy verdict – consent isn’t erased just because two people are married. When the 2012 Nirbhaya case shocked people, the Justice Verma Committee said in 2013 that marital rape should be clearly made illegal. Yet lawmakers ignored it, worried about clashing with what some call family traditions. So, today’s laws still skip punishing husbands who force sex on wives. This also undermines India’s commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which India ratified in 1993. CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35 on Gender-Based Violence against Women (2017), updating General Recommendation No. 19, recognises such abuse as a form of gender-based violence requiring state action without exception. Look elsewhere: Britain abolished the marital rape immunity in R v R [1992] 1 AC 599 (HL), affirming that marriage does not negate the requirement of consent. In Canada, their Criminal Code treats consent the same for everyone, respecting culture but rejecting pressure. Start here: laws, past rulings, and international promises are weighed to argue one clear point – scrapping the current rule now. A fresh version should treat everyone equally, hinge on real consent, allow courts to strike it down when freedoms clash. Training officers helps, so do quicker trials, public talks that shift views slowly. What grows between people works best when picked freely, never forced. When the law bans coercion, fairness follows; silence breaks inside houses just like outside them.
| 📄 Type | 🔍 Information |
|---|---|
| Research Paper | LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (LIJDLR), Volume 4, Issue 1, Page 1488–1502. |
| 🔗 Creative Commons | © Copyright |
| This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License . | © Authors, 2026. All rights reserved. |