Marital Rape hearing: LIVE UPDATES from Delhi High Court

The Delhi High will continue hearing a batch of petitions demanding the criminalisation of marital rape.The petitions challenge Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which exempts non-consensual sex between husband and wife from the ambit of rape.On 7 February, the Delhi High Court gave the Central government two weeks’ time to make its stand clear and come with a 'yes or no' answer on the issue of criminalisation of marital rape.Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma was asked to make the Centre’s stand clear by today, after which the Court would take a decision as to how much time the government has to be given either to argue its case or to take a wider consultative view on the issue.The matter is being heard by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar.Live updates from the hearing below..Advocate Karuna Nundy informs the Court that government has to make its submissions today..ASG Chetan Sharma appears..Sharma: Learned Solicitor General will be leading us. Bench: Ms Arora said you will argue, you are saying SG will argue. ASG: I am requesting for some time. Learned ASG will join..Bench: We have some affidavit filed by you. What do you have to say on that?.Justice Hari Shankar says he has not received any affidavit. SG Tushar Mehta appears..SG reads the affidavit. SG: As narrated in earlier affidavit it is our considered stand that a stand will be taken only after consultation with the state governments and other stakeholders..SG informs that a communication dated Febraury 10 has also been sent to the government and national commission for women. SG: We reiterate that it is desirable that the hearing be deferred..SG Tushar Mehta now reads the February 10 communication..SG: We have asked for the comments and views most immediately. Bench: Have you got any response? SG: No..Bench: We can't keep the matter hanging like this. You can have your consultation going on. To say that you defer it endlessly that can't happen..Bench: If you would recollect we had said this is the matter which will be resolved either through Court or through legislature. As long as there is a challenge before us, we will have to go on..Bench: It is now coming to a situation where we are coming to a log jam. As a law officer you have to tell us as whether it has ever happened? SG: There are very few challenges which impact social and family life. Generally when a legislative enactment is challenged we taken a stand. But those are commercial or taxation laws. There are very few cases when such wide consequences is found.. It is therefore our stand that we will be able to put our stand only after consultation..Bench: When 377 or adultery case happened or even this case when children aspect was being adjudicated, the Court went on with the matter..Bench: The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that you have to close it. We are not the last repository of wisdom. Someone needs to take a call. Whether it is AG or lawmakers someone has to take a call..Bench: If I make you sit here even you would say I better argue one way or the other. You have to bite the bullet. Say if you agree with the petitioners or not..SG: We are deciding where we should be. It would not be prudent for Centre to say yes or no. Bench: A decisive executive has to say yes or no. No one stops you from changing your stand..SG: I don't wish to trouble Your Lords beyond a point. It is now for you to take a call. Bench: Tell me when do you want to start? Today, tomorrow or the day after?SG: We will take a stand only after consultation..Bench: So should we deal with your counter or not? SG: We have no counter as yet. Bench: So tell us when do you want to start. You argue on law. There are no facts as such in this matter..Bench: Please understand from our point of view. You have put us in a situation. SG: I would not go beyond what is stated in the affidavit. Bench: So we will close the issue then..Nundy points that affidavit or written submissions were filed by the Centre. Bench: Please come to the Court on physical day (24 February). Please clarify whether there is an affidavit or not..SG leaves the meeting. Advocate RK Kapoor says he has some submissions to make on behalf of intervenors..Kapoor shares a document on whether the Court can issue directions to parliament to make a law..Kapoor shares the Kesavanand Bharti v State of Kerala case.Bench: By the time you came to end of your submission, the weather changed..Advocate Sai Deepak appearsDeepak: I want to respond to the submissions made by the petitioners through written submissions.Bench: Okay, keep it short..Bench asks convenience compilations to be sent within a week..J Hari Shankar: I would request all the counsel to put their written submissions in one bundle so that we don't miss anything..Another lawyer appears saying he has a connected matter. Advocate: We are asking for this amendment to go..Advocate: The 2013 amendment has created an inconsistency. J Shakdher: This is not connected. We will hear it after we deliver our judgment in this case..Bench: We will have it for direction on March 2. We will close it then..Colin Gonsalves: Your lordships is dealing with the government stand that they would not argue?.Bench: We will go by their latest affidavits. We are keeping it for housekeeping purpose on March 2..Order: Mr Tushar Mehta had joined the proceedings, he adverted to the affidavit filed today. He read out from the affidavit, in sum Mr Mehta submitted that the Government has written to stakeholders seeking comments..Order: He asked the matter to be deferred. During the course of the hearing it was indicated to Mr Mehta that in an ongoing matter this cannot be possible as there is no terminal date. Counsel for parties has addressed the argument. Judgment is reserved..Order: List for direction on March 2. Counsel are also directed to file their convenience compilations.

Marital Rape hearing: LIVE UPDATES from Delhi High Court

Related Stories