Independent Thought v. Union of India [2017 SC] Notes | Study Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT

CLAT: Independent Thought v. Union of India [2017 SC] Notes | Study Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT

The document Independent Thought v. Union of India [2017 SC] Notes | Study Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT is a part of the CLAT Course Current Affairs & General Knowledge.
All you need of CLAT at this link: CLAT

The issue before us is limited but one of considerable public importance – whether sexual intercourse between a man and his wife being a girl between 15 and 18 years of age is rape?

Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC answers this in the negative, but in our opinion sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether she is married or not.

The exception carved out in the IPC creates an unnecessary and artificial distinction between a married girl child and an unmarried girl child and has no rational nexus with any unclear objective sought to be achieved. The artificial distinction is arbitrary and discriminatory and is definitely not in the best interest of the girl child.

The artificial distinction is contrary to the philosophy and ethos of Article 15(3) of the Constitution as well as contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution and our commitments in international conventions.

We make it clear that we have refrained from making any observation with regard to the marital rape of a woman who is 18 years of age and above since that issue is not before us at all.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides that if the husband of a girl child harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well being, whether mental or physical, of his wife including by causing physical abuse and sexual abuse, he would be liable to have a protection order issued against him and pay compensation to his wife.

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA)

Section 3 of the PCMA provides that a child marriage is voidable at the option of any one of the parties to the child marriage – a child marriage is not void, but only voidable. Interestingly, and notwithstanding the fact that a child marriage is only voidable, Parliament has made a child marriage an offence and has provided punishments for contracting a child marriage.

Section 9 PCMA provides that any male adult above 18 years of age marrying a child shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both. Therefore regardless of his age, a male is penalized under this section if he marries a girl child.

Section 10 PCMA provides that whoever performs, conducts, directs or abets any child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Section 11 of the PCMA provides punishment for promoting or permitting solemnization of a child marriage.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)

Clause (n) of Section 5 provides that if a person commits penetrative sexual assault with a child, then that person actually commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault if that person is related to the child, inter alia, through marriage. Therefore, if the husband of a girl child commits penetrative sexual assault on his wife, he actually commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault as defined in Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act which is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by a term of rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years and which may extend to imprisonment for life and fine.

The duality therefore is that having sexual intercourse with a girl child between 15 and 18 years of age, the husband of the girl child is said to have not committed rape as defined in Section 375 of the IPC but is said to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault in terms of Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act.

There is no real or material difference between the definition of rape in the terms of Section 375 of the IPC and penetrative sexual assault in the terms of Section 3 of the POCSO Act.

The only difference is that the definition of rape is somewhat more elaborate and has two exceptions but the sum and substance of the two definitions is more or less the same and the punishment (under Section 376(1) of the IPC) for being found guilty of committing the offence of rape is the same as for penetrative sexual assault (under Section 4 of the POCSO Act). Similarly, the punishment for‘aggravated’ rape under Section 376(2) of the IPC is the same as for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Consequently, it is immaterial if a person is guilty of the same sexual activity under the provisions of the POCSO Act or the provisions of the IPC – the end result is the same and only the forum of trial changes. In a violation of the provisions of the POCSO Act, a Special Court constituted under Section 28 of the said Act would be the Trial Court but the ordinary criminal court would be the Trial Court for an offence under the IPC.

Section 42-A was inserted in the POCSO Act by an amendment made on 3rd February, 2013.

“The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of the inconsistency.”

The consequence of this amendment is that the provisions of the POCSO Act will override the provisions of any other law (including the IPC) to the extent of any inconsistency.

Conclusion

On a complete assessment of the law and the documentary material, it appears that there are really five options before us: (i) To let the incongruity remain as it is – this does not seem a viable option to us, given that the lives of thousands of young girls are at stake; (ii) To strike down as unconstitutional Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC – in the present case  this is also not a viable option since this relief was given up and no such issue was raised; (iii) To reduce the age of consent from 18 years to 15 years – this too is not a viable option and would ultimately be for Parliament to decide; (iv) To bring the POCSO Act in consonance with Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC – this is also not a viable option since it would require not only a retrograde amendment to the POCSO Act but also to several other pro-child statutes; (v) To read Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC in a purposive manner to make it in consonance with the POCSO Act, the spirit of other pro-child legislations and the human rights of a married girl child.

Being purposive and harmonious constructionists, we are of opinion that this is the only pragmatic option available. Therefore, we are left with absolutely no other option but to harmonize the system of laws relating to children and require Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC to now be meaningfully read as: “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape.”

Deepak Gupta, J

This Court is of the view that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC is arbitrary since it is violative of the principles enshrined in Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Parliament increased the minimum age for marriage. The Parliament also increased the minimum age of consent but the inaction in raising the age in Exception 2 is by itself an arbitrary non-exercise of power.

Therefore, Exception 2, in so far as it relates to the girl child below eighteen years, is unreasonable, unjust, unfair and violative of the rights of the girl child. To that extent the same is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

One more ground for holding that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC is discriminatory is that this is the only provision in various penal laws which gives immunity to the husband.

If the husband beats a girl child and has forcible sexual intercourse with her, he may be charged for offences under Sections 323, 324, 325 IPC etc. but he cannot be charged with rape. This leads to an anomalous and astounding situation where the husband can be charged with lesser offences, but not with the more serious offence of rape. As far as sexual crimes against women are concerned, these are covered by Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D of the IPC. There is no exception clause giving immunity to the husband for such offences.

The Domestic Violence Act will also apply in such cases and the husband does not get immunity. The husband is not given the immunity in any other penal provision except in Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. Exception 2 is, therefore, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, on this count also.

The discrimination is absolutely patent and, therefore, in my view, Exception 2, in so far as it relates to the girl child between 15 to 18 years is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory against the girl child.

LAW IN CONFLICT WITH POCSO

Section 42 of POCSO makes it clear that where an offence is punishable both under POCSO and under IPC, then the offender, if found guilty of such offence, is liable to be punished under that Act, which provides for more severe punishment. This is against the traditional concept of criminal jurisprudence that if two punishments are provided, then the benefit of the lower punishment should be given to the offender. The legislature knowingly introduced Section 42 of POCSO to protect the interests of the child.

Section 42A provides that in case of any inconsistency between the provisions of POCSO and any other law, then it is the provisions of POCSO, which will have an overriding effect to the extent of inconsistency.

Penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault have been defined in Section 3 and Section 5 of POCSO. Section 3 of the POCSO is identical to the opening portion of Section 375 of IPC whereas Section 5 of POCSO is similar to Section 376(2) of the IPC.

Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC, which makes sexual intercourse or acts of consensual sex of a man with his own “wife” not being under 15 years of age, not an offence, is not found in any provision of POCSO. Therefore, this is a major inconsistency between POCSO and IPC. As provided in Section 42A, in case of such an inconsistency, POCSO will prevail.

Moreover, POCSO is a special Act, dealing with the children whereas IPC is the general criminal law. Therefore, POCSO will prevail over IPC and Exception 2 in so far as it relates to children, is inconsistent with POCSO.

RELIEF

In view of the above discussion, I am clearly of the opinion that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC in so far as it relates to a girl child below 18 years is liable to be struck down on the following grounds:–

(i) it is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and violative of the rights of the girl child and not fair, just and reasonable and, therefore, violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and;

(iii) it is inconsistent with the provisions of POCSO, which must prevail.

Therefore, Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC is read down as follows:

“Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being 18 years, is not rape”.

It is, however, made clear that this judgment will have prospective effect. It is also clarified that Section 198(6) of the Code will apply to cases of rape of “wives” below 18 years, and cognizance can be taken only in accordance with the provisions of Section 198(6) of the Code.

The document Independent Thought v. Union of India [2017 SC] Notes | Study Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT is a part of the CLAT Course Current Affairs & General Knowledge.
All you need of CLAT at this link: CLAT

Related Searches

Independent Thought v. Union of India [2017 SC] Notes | Study Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT

,

mock tests for examination

,

pdf

,

Semester Notes

,

Exam

,

video lectures

,

Independent Thought v. Union of India [2017 SC] Notes | Study Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT

,

practice quizzes

,

ppt

,

Extra Questions

,

Free

,

MCQs

,

shortcuts and tricks

,

past year papers

,

Viva Questions

,

Objective type Questions

,

Sample Paper

,

Independent Thought v. Union of India [2017 SC] Notes | Study Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT

,

study material

,

Important questions

,

Summary

,

Previous Year Questions with Solutions

;