Case Brief: Independent Thought v. Union Of India & Anr. | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• The Indian Penal Code defines rape as the disregard of a woman's consent for a man's pleasure.
• Exception 2 of Section 375 created disparity in treatment of minors based on marital status.
• Customs and personal laws in India have deep roots in societal norms.
• An analysis of a significant judgment addressing child rights and Exception 2 to Section 375.

Facts of Independent Thought v. Union of India & Anr.

• Independent Thought, a Child Rights organization, highlighted the rights violation of married minor girls.
• Section 375 sets the age of consent at 18, criminalizing sexual activity below that age.
• Exception 2 to Section 375 allowed non-consensual sex with a married minor girl aged 15-18.
• An issue arose regarding the constitutionality of Exception 2 under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
• Citation:(2017) 10 SCC 800
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Coram: Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta
• Theme: Marital Rape of Child Brides
• Subject: Criminal Law
• Judgement: India

Issues in Independent Thought v. Union Of India & Anr.

• Whether Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to girls aged 15 to 18 years, should be invalidated for violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
• Is it justifiable to have an exception in the Indian Penal Code concerning the age of consent, specifically when it has been set at 18 years for girls in all other statutes?

Arguments Presented by the Petitioner

• The petitioner's counsel argued that marital status posed a significant barrier to safeguarding the bodily rights and integrity of girls aged 15 to 18.
• They contended that Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC created a legal obstacle, turning non-consensual acts into severe offenses.
• The petitioner highlighted how the provision lacked a justifiable link to the marital status of girls in that age group.
• Reference was made to the 84th Report of the Law Commission of India, emphasizing the contradiction where marriage below 18 was prohibited, yet non-consensual marital relations were not penalized.
• Various studies were cited, including reports from UNICEF and Census 2011, illustrating the distressing situations faced by affected girls and the grim future they were forced into.
• Legal provisions such as the Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act were invoked to underscore the inconsistency in the current penal provision regarding the age of consent.
• The petitioner argued that the provision infringed upon reproductive rights, leading to social issues like unwanted pregnancies, maternal mortality, and increased vulnerability to sexual violence.

Arguments Presented by the Respondents

• The respondents' counsel presented statistics from the National Family Health Survey-3, showing the prevalence of early marriages in the country and highlighting potential social disruptions if the challenged provision were removed.
• They argued that considering the socio-economic conditions and traditional norms in India, removing the clause might lead to societal disharmony.
• The respondents emphasized that child marriage, conducted with consent, should not automatically incriminate the husband, who is also influenced by societal norms.
• It was mentioned that although the Law Commission suggested raising the age in question from 15 to 16 years, the original age limit of 15 years was retained after extensive discussions.
• The respondents portrayed the potential negative consequences and social upheaval that could result from the elimination of the Exception in question.

Judgment: Independent Thought v. Union Of India & Anr.

• On October 11, 2017, a significant ruling was made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Independent Thought vs. The Union of India & Anr. This case involved Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta. The court passed a judgment that affected Exception 2 to Section 375 (rape) of the IPC, which previously led to discriminatory treatment of minor girls based on their marital status.
• Justice Madan B. Lokur emphasized the importance of considering a child as a child, regardless of their marital status. He highlighted that Exception 2 had led to a violation of the fundamental right to live with dignity. Justice Lokur proposed that sexual intercourse with a wife under 18 years old should be considered rape to protect individuals' rights.
• Justice Deepak Gupta also expressed concerns about child brides, highlighting that many are below 15 years old and often lack understanding of marriage. He criticized the low prosecution rates and annulments of marriages under the PCMA. Exception 2 of Section 375 was deemed violative of several Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution.
  • Article 14 of the Constitution: Addresses the discriminatory nature of the exception based on girls' marital status.
  • Article 15 of the Constitution: Discusses how this law negatively affects citizens' lives without correction due to lack of state funds.
  • Article 21 of the Constitution: Focuses on the right to live with dignity and develop as an independent adult.
• The Supreme Court highlighted the government's obligation to address child marriage and protect the rights of married girls. The judgment aimed to reduce the vulnerability of minor girls to rape, especially in the context of child marriage prevalent in India.
• The Bench explored various legal cases to support their decision, emphasizing the need to interpret statutes constructively. They referred to international conventions and national policies concerning child rights and sexual offenses, ensuring the protection of children from unlawful activities.
• Ultimately, the Court declared that the judgment would not apply retrospectively, emphasizing the importance of upholding equality and the Constitution without endorsing unconstitutional practices.

Present Status of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court's Division Bench, consisting of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, issued a decree in the case of Independent thought v. Union of India and Another.
• The decree remains valid and has not been overturned to this day.
• The Court invalidated the Exception to the penal provision under scrutiny.
• The responsibility for removing the invalidated provision from the penal statute lies solely with the Central Legislature.
• Despite the judicial ruling, the Central Legislature has not yet made any amendments in accordance with the court's decision.

Conclusion

• The landmark judgment in the case of Independent Thought v. Union of India played a pivotal role in addressing legal ambiguities that hindered the protection of the rights of the girl child. The case addressed a disparity between the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which allowed for the sexual abuse of child brides aged 15-18 without being labeled as 'rape.'
• The significant outcome of reading down the Exception in question marked a major milestone in securing the rights of the girl child, aiming to curb the practice of child marriage and subsequent exploitation. This legal development rendered the consummation of marriage with a minor wife illegal under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, now falling within the ambit of "rape." This change acts as a potent deterrent for individuals contemplating marrying a minor, as it carries the serious consequences of being branded a rapist and facing criminal charges.
• While India positions itself as a champion of human rights globally, the reluctance of the Indian Government to criminalize child marital rape was evident during the legal proceedings. The government argued that such criminalization would infringe upon Indian traditions and negatively impact the institution of marriage. However, the Supreme Court rightfully condemned these regressive arguments, highlighting the need for progress and equality in the institution of marriage. The court's stance reflects a commitment to preventing grave injustices and ensuring that the country moves forward rather than regressing to medieval times. The judgment underscores the court's role in restraining perpetuation of such injustice and promoting a more just and equitable society.