New Delhi: This center told Delhi High Court who punished forced sex in marriage because rape was a problem involving “social and family problems” and the dignity of a woman and could not be seen from the “microscopic angle”.
Urge the High Court to give time to have a “consultative process”, General Tushar Mehta’s lawyer said he would do “injustice for citizens” if the government case was put into a “half-hearted road”.
“Your master is not only deciding the legislation or constitutional validity of a provision.
It may not be seen from the microscopic angle …
here, the dignity of a woman is at stake.
There are social and family problems.
There will be some considerations that will burden the government to take a position to help, “he said.
Maintaining that the center must be “very conscious”, the lawyer General confirmed that considering the appointment of the applicant and the same seat was taken by Amici Curiae, it would “not suitable” for the center not to tell the court to have it “a broader view of the problem”.
The government wants to consider this problem with “holistic ways”, he added.
Judge Rajiv Shakdher, who heard the problem with the Justice C day Shankar, said the problem could not continue to hang and the court wanted to conclude the trial.
“I’m not saying no.
Let him (Amicus) finish.
I will give you more days – 10 more days, but beyond it, it becomes difficult for me to,” said the judge.
“For some people here, there are cases of life (from one of the applicants), every day is important for simple reasons that some say this abuse occurs, it may not be reported but this happens.
Now it is impossible for our answer that is there for 100 year, now what is urgency.
Now we’ve started, we want to conclude, “he added.
Meanwhile, Amicus said sexual relations with his wife violated his rights to the integrity of the body and autonomy of his sexual decisions, and there were no other legal provisions, regardless of violations of rape under the IPC 375, enough to demand husband’s error.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John argues that other violations that can be done by husbands are different from rape crime.
(The identity of the victim has not been disclosed to protect his privacy in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court about cases related to sexual violence)