Case Brief: Independent Thought vs. Union of India | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

The petitioner, a registered association working for child rights, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in the public interest. They aimed to highlight the violation of the rights of girl children married between the ages of 15 and 18 years.

Issue in Independent Thought vs. Union of India

Whether Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, concerning girls aged 15 to 18 years, is unconstitutional under Article 14, Article 15, and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments

Arguments in Favor of the Petitioner

• Exception 2 to Sec 375 of IPC is criticized for being arbitrary and discriminatory, lacking a clear link to its intended purpose.
• The provision puts underage girls at a disadvantage and contradicts the principles of Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution.
• It grants husbands of underage girls the freedom for non-consensual sexual intercourse, violating human rights laws.
• Forced sexual encounters with underage wives are considered violations of human rights and domestic violence laws.
• Child marriage leads to various societal issues like neglect, lower education standards, and increased health risks for young girls.
• Even the Law Commission of India agrees that sexual intercourse with girls under 18 should be prohibited to align with the Child Marriage Restraint Act.

Arguments in Favor of the Respondent

• Statistics show a high prevalence of child marriages in India, complicating the criminalization of such unions.
• Child marriages are legally voidable, not void, under the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, necessitating the need for Exception 2 in Sec 375 of IPC.
• Exception 2 of Section 375 allows for cultural traditions by recognizing marriages solemnized at age 15.
• Legal provisions should consider social realities, and Exception 2 aims at protecting certain societal norms.
• Marriage implies consent to sexual relations, according to the respondent's argument.
• Respecting customs and traditions, including exceptions in laws, is crucial for societal harmony.
• Concerns about marital rape potentially damaging the institution of marriage are raised.
• Prohibiting sexual relations between married minors could lead to increased societal issues like child abuse.

Judges' Considerations

• The National Charter for Children and related policies emphasize protection against child marriage and sexual offenses.
• Various legal acts and conventions stress the importance of safeguarding children's rights and well-being.
• Legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act highlights the need to protect child brides.
• Women's rights to dignity, integrity, and reproductive choices must be upheld.

Legal Significance of the Case

• This landmark decision acknowledges that child marriage is linked to a continuum of sexual and reproductive health harm, violating the government's obligation to ensure girls' rights to contraceptive choice and bodily integrity. The court actively sought evidence on the health risks of rape within child marriage, citing studies that establish child marriage triggers severe reproductive rights and human rights violations. These include exposing girls to an increased risk of forced sex, early and unintended pregnancies, maternal mortality, morbidity, and sexually transmitted infections. The court expressed concern that girls most vulnerable to child marriage lacked the information, education, and agency to make decisions about their pregnancies and access to nutrition or healthcare.
• The judgment emphasizes that denying girls the ability to refuse sex within marriage violates their fundamental right to reproductive choice. It asserts that this right must be enforced "even more" for married girls, who face life-threatening risks from early pregnancies resulting from coerced intercourse.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Independent Thought case marks a significant stride in safeguarding the rights of the girl child by condemning sexual intercourse with a spouse under 18 years. However, the Supreme Court did not provide specific provisions for cases where the interests of another minor, the spouse, are also at stake. Neglecting instances of elopement and marriage, prevalent in India, and not addressing the issue of "marital rape" when the girl is over 18, the court's stance seems against the interests of the boy child. The reasoning applied to declare Exception 2 as violative of Fundamental Rights is equally relevant to a girl over 18, whose right to dignity is compromised by coercive sexual relations.