NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred its hearing on a plea to criminalise marital rape as CJI D Y Chandrachud expressed inability to conclude the hearing before his date of retirement on November 10.
The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, which heard the matter on October 17, adjourned the proceedings in the contentious matter, in view of time estimates given by the various counsel seeking one day's time by each of them.
CJI Chandrachud Unable to Conclude Marital Rape Hearing Before Retirement
The matter is likely to be posted for consideration afresh before another bench.
On Wednesday, a host of counsel appearing for various parties including the Centre and State sought one day's time for each of them to put forth their arguments on the matter.
"It would not be possible to complete the hearings in the foreseeable future," the bench said.
Senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Karuna Nundy, appearing for the petitioners said they had a deep regret as they wanted to continue arguing before the bench led by the Chief Justice of India.
Nundy said it was very much possible to conclude the hearing if everyone stuck to the time schedule.
The bench, however, said it can't stop other counsel from raising their arguments.
Solicitor General Highlights Need for Polycentric Consideration in Marital Rape Case
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reiterated the Centre's stand brought in an affidavit that marriage does not obliterate the concept of sexual consent. However, criminalising marital rape would require the court to assess the situation from different perspectives. He said the matter would require polycentric consideration in view of huge ramifications.
Nundy insisted the bench to continue hearing the matter, while telling the CJI, "Your legacy would warrant that this case to be heard for millions of women".
Mehta, however, the legacy of the CJI would still be remembered and this statement was not required to be made.
The controversial issue of marital rape has been mentioned a number of times for hearing before the CJI led bench which court observers found owing to a liberal outlook and aporoach by the incumbent CJI.
On October 17, the bench had said it would decide the constitutional validity of penal provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which grant immunity from prosecution to a husband for the offence of rape if he forces his wife, who is not a minor, to have sex with him.
The central government, in its affidavit filed on October 3, had opposed the batch of pleas against the criminalisation of marital rape, on the ground that there are already "suitably designed punitive measures" in place to deal with the sensitive issue.
It had feared a far-reaching effect on the institution of marriage if Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC were struck down on the grounds of its constitutional validity.
