NEWS  Marital or other relationship between the perpetrator, victim cannot be a rape defence. A relationship between two individuals, including marriage, is built around love, respect, trust and consent. Within that civilised framework, a violent and exploitative act like rape has no place.

 BACKGROUND OF TWO CASES BEING DEBATED

• Recently, the Supreme Court’s asked a Maharashtra government employee, whether he would marry a girl he was accused of raping repeatedly while she was a minor.
• Instead of meting out harsh punishment to the accused the Court asked the lawyer representing the accused to find out whether his client would be willing to marry the victim or risk going to jail.
• In another case, the Bench stayed the arrest of a man accused of rape after falsely promising marriage. The CJI in this case asked the girl’s lawyer: “When two people are living as husband and wife, however brutal the husband is, can you call sexual intercourse between them ‘rape’?” 

CONCERNS REGARDING SUCH PRONOUNCEMENTS

• offering marriage as a solution to a rape victim is insensitive to the core and by doing this, the judiciary has failed to protect the rights of a girl.
• This makes the arduous battle for equality against misogyny, patriarchal mindsets and other failings such as blaming the victim for rape, even more difficult when people in high offices make offensive remarks.

PENALTIES AGAINST RAPE AND MARITAL RAPE

• In both cases, these crimes attract severe penalties under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
• On marital rape, though the recommendation was not included in the Act, the Justice J.S. Verma Committee was clear that the law ought to specify that a marital or another relationship between the perpetrator and victim cannot be a defence against sexual violation.
• Citing the judgment of the European Commission of Human Rights in C.R. vs U.K., it endorsed the conclusion that “a rapist remains a rapist regardless of his relationship with the victim”
• In Shimbhu & Anr vs State of Haryana (2013), the Supreme Court said the offer of a rapist to marry the victim cannot be used to reduce the sentence prescribed by law.

CONCLUSION

• When the scars of the Nirbhaya case are still raw, and a series of rape and murders are being reported against minors, the judiciary’s shocking remarks echo a deep-set prejudice against gender equality.
• The law should deliver justice and not blatantly tilt the scales against women’s rights.
• Marital or other relationship between the perpetrator and victim, it cannot be defence against sexual violation.

Reference:

1. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/rape-and-marriage-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-supreme-courts-failure-to-protect-the-rights-of-women/article33983306.ece