9/7/2023 0 Comments Judicial consent movie part 1Secondly, I shall note that under existing Indian constitutional law, Justice Shakder is correct, and Justice Hari Shankar is wrong. Justice Hari Shankar – although he denies it from time to time – believes that within a marriage, a woman’s consent to sex carries less weight. Justice Shakder believes that whether in a marriage or out of it, sexual consent is paramount and inviolable. In this post, I shall argue, first, that the fundamental point of difference between the two judges is on the question of consent. ![]() Previously, on this blog, I have analysed the constitutional issues around the MRE in some detail. The two-judge bench delivered a split judgment: Justice Shakder struck down the MRE as unconstitutional on all of the above grounds, while Justice Hari Shankar upheld its constitutionality. Put simply, the marital rape exception states that “sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife … is not rape.” Petitioners – supported by amici – argued that the marital rape exception – which, in effect, immunises married men from being prosecuted for rape – violated Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution. ![]() Today, a division bench of the High Court handed down its judgment on the constitutional challenge to the marital rape exception.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |