Context:

• A relationship between two individuals, including marriage, is built around love, respect, trust and consent. Within that civilised framework, a violent and exploitative act like rape has no place.
• Seen in that context, the Supreme Court’s latest query to a Maharashtra government employee asking whether he would marry a girl he was accused of raping repeatedly while she was a minor is insensitive to the core.

Repercussions:

• By offering marriage as a solution to a rape victim, the judiciary failed to protect the rights of a girl.
• Instead of meting out harsh punishment, the Court asked the lawyer representing the accused to find out whether his client would be willing to marry the victim or risk going to jail.
• Equal rights activists have always worked hard against misogyny, patriarchal mindsets and other failings such as blaming the victim for rape. This arduous battle for equality becomes even more difficult when people in high offices make offensive remarks.

Rape in Marriage:

• The Verma Committee was clear that the law ought to specify that a marital or another relationship between the perpetrator and victim cannot be a defence against sexual violation.
• Citing the judgment of the European Commission of Human Rights in C.R. vs U.K., it endorsed the conclusion that “a rapist remains a rapist regardless of his relationship with the victim”.
• In Shimbhu & Anr vs State of Haryana (2013), the Supreme Court said the offer of a rapist to marry the victim cannot be used to reduce the sentence prescribed by law.
• When the scars of the Nirbhaya case are still raw, and a series of rape and murders are being reported against minors, especially Dalits, in Uttar Pradesh, the judiciary’s shocking remarks echo a deep-set prejudice against gender equality.
• The law should deliver justice, not blatantly tilt the scales against women’s rights.

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/rape-and-marriage/article33984456.ece

Download PDF