Marital Rape and Constitutional Rights: Exploring the Necessity for Reform in Legal Frameworks
Keywords:
Marital Rape, Constitutional Rights, Bodily Autonomy, Gender Equality, Consent, Criminal Law Reform, Human DignityAbstract
One of the most contentious and underreported types of sexual violence in legal systems across the globe is marital rape, which is defined as non-consensual sexual activity between spouses. There is a problematic disconnect between constitutional aspirations and statutory law since some legal frameworks maintain marital rape exclusions despite evolving constitutional
jurisprudence emphasizing individual liberty, dignity, and equality. In order to determine if current legal exclusions can bear constitutional scrutiny and to investigate the need for reform in modern legal frameworks, this article looks at marital rape through the prism of constitutional rights.
Using statutory legislation, court rulings, international human rights treaties, constitutional provisions, and comparative legal analysis, the study employs a doctrinal and analytical research technique. It assesses critically how core constitutional principles like equality before the law,, non-discrimination, individual liberty, bodily autonomy, privacy, and human dignity clash with
marital rape exclusions. The article also places the matter in the larger context of international human rights law, specifically obligations arising under treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which acknowledge marital violence as a violation of human rights.
The article's thorough study reveals that marital rape exclusions stem from antiquated ideas of implied consent and patriarchal control over women's bodies, which are irreconcilable with contemporary constitutional ideals. Criminalizing marital rape has improved legal protection for survivors without weakening the institution of marriage, according to a comparative analysis of countries including Singapore, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The case studies
presented further demonstrate how legislative changes and judicial actions have gradually acknowledged consent as essential to sexual autonomy, regardless of marital status.
According to the article's conclusion, the ongoing legal acceptance of marital rape constitutes a constitutional oddity that weakens the rule of law and upholds gender inequality. It claims that making marital rape a crime is a constitutional requirement to guarantee equal protection under the law and the achievement of fundamental rights, not just a matter of policy. In order to bring domestic laws into compliance with international human rights norms and constitutional obligations, the article eventually promotes complete legal reform, judicial sensitization, and societal awareness.
References
Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 800 (India).
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 S.C.C. 608 (India).
State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 S.C.C. 75 (India).
X v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 3896 of 2020, Karnataka High Court (Mar. 23, 2022).
Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 375 & Exception 2 (India).
INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 15, 19, 21.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
Comm. on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 19: Violence Against Women, U.N. Doc. A/47/38 (1992).
Comm. on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 35: Gender-Based Violence Against Women, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/35 (2017).
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, G.A. Res. 48/104, U.N. Doc. A/RES/48/104 (Dec. 20, 1993).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
Human Rights Comm., General Comment No. 28: Equality of Rights Between Men and Women, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10 (2000).
R v. R, [1992] 1 A.C. 599 (H.L.) (U.K.).
Oregon v. Rideout, 458 P.2d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 (S. Afr.).
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 (Nepal).
M.C. v. Bulgaria, App. No. 39272/98, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2003).
CATHARINE A. MACKINNON, TOWARD A FEMINIST THEORY OF THE STATE 171–83 (Harvard Univ. Press 1989).
Flavia Agnes, Protecting Women Against Violence? Review of a Decade of Legislation, 27 ECON. & POL. WKLY. 19 (1992).
RATNA KAPUR, SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND THE LAW (Oxford Univ. Press 2000).
REBECCA J. COOK & SIMONE CUSACK, GENDER STEREOTYPING: TRANSNATIONAL LEGAL PERSPECTIVES (Univ. of Pa. Press 2010).
Bina Agarwal, Bargaining and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household, 3 FEMINIST ECON. 1 (1997).
LAW COMM’N OF INDIA, 42ND REP. ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (1971).
LAW COMM’N OF INDIA, 172ND REP. ON REVIEW OF RAPE LAWS (2000).
AMNESTY INT’L, WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS: A GUIDE TO CEDAW (2014).
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, MARITAL RAPE: CRIMINALIZATION AND SURVIVORS’ ACCESS TO JUSTICE (2018).
U.N. WOMEN, HANDBOOK FOR LEGISLATION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN (2012).
NAT’L COMM’N FOR WOMEN (INDIA), REPORTS ON MARITAL RAPE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
