On January 9, a Supreme Court division bench comprised of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha issued notice in another petition challenging the constitutionality of the marital rape exception. Previously, the Supreme Court had scheduled a hearing on the validity of the marital rape exception for the second week of January 2023.

DY Chandrachud, CJI, stated-

"You are challenging the validity of a central law on the ground that reading the marital rape exception would amount to a breach of 14. That does not raise the issue of whether Article 14 will apply to personal relations or not. The question is that Article 14 does apply to statute. And we have to test the validity of that exception with reference to Article 14."

The bench issued a notice in the matter and filed it alongside the other petitions challenging the legality of the marital rape exception.
The Petitioner, a Dalit anti-caste and women's rights activist, social worker, and General Secretary of Women's Voice, Karnataka, has challenged the exception on the grounds that it violates Constitutional Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), and 21.

According to the petition-

"The doctrine of coverture that underpins the impunity afforded to married men vide the marital rape exception also seeks to maintain caste hierarchies and “pure” kinship structures. Such violent policing of women’s bodies further caste-based assault particularly in the experience of Dalit women who are treated as objects of sexual exploitation by the Savarna men that they marry. The Petitioner also seeks to bring this intersectional experience to this Hon’ble Court vide the present petition."

According to the petition, the exception violates women's constitutionally guaranteed rights to bodily integrity, decisional autonomy, and dignity. While the petition acknowledges that these rights are protected by specific laws, including criminal law, it contends that by publicly stating that rape within marriage is not "rape," the exception undermines married women's consent to sex and infringes their right to decisional autonomy.

Case Title: Ruth Manorama v. UoI 
Citation: WP(C) No. 1119/2022
Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/40699/40699_2022_1_26_40801_Order_09-Jan-2023.pdf