(1.) What looms before us is Lord Hale's Ghost. Thus, the key question which arises for consideration in these matters is whether or not we should exorcize Hale's Ghost? Hale's formulation was embedded in the doctrine of coverture; a condition which allowed a married woman to sue only through the personality of her husband. Since then, the world has moved on. Women in most parts of the world are treated as individuals, free to enter into contracts in their own right but when it comes to sexual communion with their husbands, their consent counts for nothing. In plain words, the poser before the court is: Should a husband be held criminally liable for raping his wife who is not under 18 years of age?
(2.) As was evident to us during the hearing that both within the court and outside, people all across have views concerning the issue at hand which vary in their contour and texture depending on which side of the debate they fall on; the legal issue, though, rests in a narrow space.
(3.) The moot point is (which is a more particularized version of what was stated right at the beginning) whether or not Exception 2 appended to Sec. 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter referred to as 'IPC'] should remain on the statute. Having said that, it is the impact and its ripple effect, in law, that one is required to grapple with. Thus, those who support the proposition that Exception 2 to Sec. 375 of the IPC, which is ubiquitously referred to as Marital Rape Exception [hereafter referred to as 'MRE'] should be struck down, broadly, contend that it is an archaic provision which represents the most abhorrent vestiges of colonialism while those who argue that the provision should be retained on the statute, contend that striking down the provision is fraught with the danger of disrupting marital and familial relationships, triggering misuse of law and transgression of the Constitutional periphery within which the courts are obliged to function.