The case arose from a petition challenging the constitutionality of exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which allowed for the exception of consensual sexual acts with minors if they were married. The petitioner, Independent Thought, argued that this provision violated the rights of minors and perpetuated child marriage, undermining their autonomy and dignity.
IssuesThe Supreme Court emphasized the need to uphold the fundamental rights of minors, particularly their right to dignity and protection from exploitation. The judges critically examined the societal implications of allowing exceptions for sexual acts within marriage, noting that it effectively legitimized child marriage and contributed to the normalization of abuse. They articulated that such a legal provision contradicted international conventions on child rights, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court recognized that minors are not capable of giving informed consent and that permitting such exceptions could lead to severe psychological and physical harm.
DecisionThe Court ruled that the exception 2, under Section 375 IPC, was unconstitutional and struck it down, declaring that sexual intercourse with a girl child under 18 years, regardless of marital status, constituted rape. This landmark judgment reinforced the principle that minors cannot consent to sexual acts, thereby enhancing legal protections for children and promoting gender equality in India.