From Immunity to Accountability: The Evolution of Judicial Attitudes Towards Marital Rape in India

Abstract

Marital rape remains a profound gap in Indian criminal jurisprudence, sustained by outdated notions that presume perpetual consent within marriage. This legal presumption denies women their fundamental rights to bodily autonomy and dignity, while reinforcing patriarchal structures. Despite constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and the right to live with dignity, Indian law continues to offer implicit immunity to husbands who commit sexual violence against their wives. This paper traces the slow evolution of judicial attitudes toward marital rape in India from institutional silence to a more engaged, though fragmented, discourse. While courts have begun to acknowledge the harm and human rights violations embedded in non-consensual conjugal relations, a consistent and robust legal framework remains absent. Judicial hesitation to criminalize marital rape outright is often justified on grounds of legislative supremacy, cultural sensitivities, and the sanctity attached to marriage. Through a critical analysis of judicial reasoning and evolving constitutional interpretations, this study explores how Indian courts are gradually aligning domestic jurisprudence with international human rights norms and constitutional morality. It underscores the urgent need for the judiciary to overcome procedural barriers and actively challenge legal exceptions that shield marital sexual assault. The paper concludes that judicial intervention is not only necessary but constitutionally mandated to uphold the rights of women within marriage. It advocates for recognizing consent as revocable and dynamic, irrespective of marital status, and calls for binding guidelines to protect victims until comprehensive legislative reform is enacted. Ultimately, the paper argues that legitimizing marital rape stands in direct violation of India’s democratic and constitutional ideals and must be abolished.