Advocate Raj Kapoor made submissions for an intervenor against the petition. Kapoor argued that several members of the Justice Verma Committee had felt that criminalising marital rape has the potential to destroy the institution of marriage. He submitted that the propriety, expedience and necessity of a legislative Act are for the determination of the legislature and not the courts.
“The question here is not as to whether the act of sexual abuse on the part of husband, despite an explicit no by the wife is a criminal act or not…Parliament is not saying that his act is not unjustified but what it is saying is that the punishment should not be under Section 376 of the IPC,” Kapoor told the Court.
He submitted that the laws of other countries cannot be used to strike down a statutory provision introduced by the parliament, and that India cannot copy-paste Western concepts.
“If the exception is struck down, the condition of the husband would be worse than those charged with Section 376… Let Parliament be the final authority to decide the exception in Section 375,” he added.
Submissions were also made by one Samit Bisaria for Men Welfare Trust contesting the challenge. He argued that the petitioners had been selective in showing the Court the laws of various countries and that in several states of the US, there is a limitation period to file a complaint, and that the law is completely gender-neutral.
Source: Barandbench
