Feminism In India’s Post

Recognising that a woman raped by her husband is ‘undoubtedly a victim’, the Supreme Court considered whether a man can be prosecuted for raping his wife when statutory law does not recognise marital rape. A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned whether a court could permit such a prosecution without first considering the validity of the marital rape exception itself. The court was hearing petitions challenging the exception, as well as an appeal against a Karnataka High Court verdict. 'Marriage cannot result in extinction of individual autonomy,' the bench noted. However, the Supreme Court’s own language must also be critiqued. Justice Bagchi observed that a 'person in a matrimony subjected to involuntary sexual intercourse is differently a victim'. Describing rape within marriage merely as ‘involuntary sexual intercourse’ or ‘non-consensual sex’ risks reinforcing the idea that spousal rape constitutes a distinct category of sexual violence, and, by implication, one that is somehow less harmful. While the language used may not have been intentional on the part of the Court, calling it out is not merely a pedantic preoccupation. The language we use, and, especially, the language used by our institutions, to describe sexual violence shapes how we understand violence and justice. To do away with the marital rape exception, we must first fully recognise marital rape as no different from sexual violence perpetrated by strangers. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, it is a travesty that, in 2026, victims of rape can be denied legal recourse to seek justice or put an end to the abuse they suffer simply because the perpetrator is their spouse. [Marital Rape, Supreme Court, Judiciary, Gender-Based Violence, Violence Against Women, Domestic Violence, Karnataka, Legal Exception, Law, Women's Rights, SA, GBV]