The Supreme Court on Monday refused to immediately defer the hearing in the batch of petitions challenging the marital rape exception.
The Court rejected the request to postpone the hearing till November.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana stated that it will hear the Union government on Wednesday, September 9, before fixing a date for final arguments.
The batch of matters before the top court stems primarily from a May 2022 split verdict of the Delhi High Court.
While Justice Rajiv Shakdher had held Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (which immunises non-consensual sexual acts by a husband against his adult wife) to be unconstitutional, Justice C Hari Shankar upheld the exception, ruling that the legislature’s classification was based on intelligible differentia.
Other petitions tagged with the batch include an appeal against a Karnataka High Court ruling that refused to quash marital rape charges framed against a husband under Section 376 IPC.
The issue was mentioned by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who pointed out that the batch comprises eight matters listed as Item 108 on September 9.
"The matter is listed on September 9 as Item 108 for final hearing. It is a group of eight matters, some of which challenge the constitutional validity of the marital rape exception. Four matters arise from a reference made following the split verdict of the Delhi High Court, while three are fresh petitions, including one filed in 2026. The Union has not filed a substantive affidavit in response, apart from raising a preliminary objection through a common order," she said.
Jaising further submitted that copies of all petitions had not been exchanged among counsel, making it difficult to ascertain common legal grounds. She requested the Bench to fix a date for final hearing in November instead.
Responding to the submission regarding the lack of a counter-affidavit from the Centre, CJI Kant remarked:
"When it is a constitutional validity matter… what is the need for the counter?"
Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy intervened to submit that the Union’s affidavit would be essential assistance to the Court.
"It will be of some assistance, especially on such a question," Nundy said.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave informed the Bench that the matter involves distinct factual and legal matrices that have been clubbed together.
After considering the submissions, the Court declined to grant an immediate adjournment to November.
"Let it come on Wednesday. Let us hear the Centre and then we will give a date," the bench said.
[Read Live Coverage]