Anomalies force Govt to amend rape law

 An illiterate, poor father's petition in the Delhi high court has forced the Union government to agree to bring wide-ranging reforms in rape laws that will treat sex with any women less than 18 years of age as rape.

Mahadev, whose daughter was allegedly kidnapped and forcibly married only to become a pregnant underaged teen, had in his petition filed two years ago exposed the conflicting provisions in IPC and Prevention of Child Marriage Act that led to serious anomalies. Over two years, a special bench grappled with Mahadev's arguments made through his lawyer Arvind Jain and repeatedly questioned the central government, demanding to know why there were conflicting provisions in law that in effect encouraged child marriages.

HC had also roped in bodies like the law commission and women's commission to brainstorm and find a solution. All this while Mahadev's pregnant daughter continued to languish in Nari Niketan because her husband was behind bars and the custody couldn't be given to the father.

Left with little room to manoeuvre, the government has decided to amend the IPC and CrPC to remove existing discrepancies that allow different penal yardsticks for 'age of consent (16)', 'marriageable age (18)' and 'exception to cohabit with wife (12-16 years)'.

A draft bill detailing amendments, submitted before a special bench on Friday by the government promises to keep 18 years as the uniform age for marriage and consent, abolishing all exceptions. In other words, sex with a girl less than 18 years will amount to rape and no discount can be given to a male who has a minor wife. Currently marital rape of a minor has lesser punishment.

The draft bill also does away with an exception under section 198 of CrPC that prohibited a court from taking cognizance of a rape complaint by a minor wife if lodged one year after the incident.

In his petition Mahadev has urged HC to strike down the sub-sections of Section 375 and 376 which do not consider rape of a woman by her husband as a crime. He had also challenged Section 6 (C) of Hindu Minority and Guardian Act and Section 198(6) of CrPC stating they were unconstitutional and in violation of his and his daughter's fundamental rights.

The petition also highlighted how under a provision of Section 376, a man raping his wife can be punished for rape.