The Centre, which is likely to address the arguments next week, earlier had submitted that it was considering a “constructive approach”. The Delhi High Court on Thursday told the Centre that it will continue hearing the petitions challenging the legal exception that protects men who have forced non-consensual intercourse with their wives from criminal prosecution, and not wait for the government’s ongoing process of initiating reform in the criminal laws. “The point is if you are going to say that we should wait till all states and all commissions come and you revamp the entire IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act before we decide this, that is not possible, that will take you 10 years to do that exercise. You are doing something particularly qua this provision [Section 375 IPC], then you tell us,” said the division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar, while addressing a counsel representing the Centre. The Centre, which is likely to address the arguments in the case next week, earlier submitted before the bench that it was considering a “constructive approach” to the matter and has invited suggestions from various authorities including chief ministers of states and chief justices of high court regarding amendment of criminal laws. “The government has already undertaken a comprehensive exercise to make amendments in the criminal laws and thus Government is already seized of the matter,” said the Ministry of Home Affairs in an additional affidavit before the court. However, the court said that it was a general exercise. “If viz a viz [IPC] 375 you people have some suggestion, then we will consider that. Generally this exercise is going to take a very long time,” observed the court. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, an amicus curiae in the case, on Thursday continued arguments on second day and contended that act of non-consensual sexual intercourse or ‘rape’ is abhorrent and inherently violative of the basic right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Rao also submitted that it violates a woman’s right to equality, personal and sexual autonomy and reproductive choices. Submitting that the exception in Section 375 IPC denies the wife the ability to prosecute her husband for the act of rape, Rao submitted, “The law says take [away] the marriage, you [husband and wife] are two equals in the eye of law. So why should the husband’s desire to have intercourse with his wife trump his wife’s desire to not have intercourse that day”. However, Justice Shankar, while interrupting the amicus, observed that most of the arguments which have been addressed so far in the case are bordering on outrage rather than law and said that as a court it has been asked to strike down a provision which will render an act an offence which invites a minimum punishment of 10 years. “It is a very very serious thing we are doing. We must be conscious of the seriousness of what we are doing and not undermine it by just making our arguments more on showing the angst and what is the plight of ladies in such situations. We must see the legal part of it too seriously and we have to do it within the well defined parameters in which a statutory provision can be declared unconstitutional,” said Justice Shankar. During the hearing, Justice Shakdher – while referring to a submission made by Rao — said that such exception in law does not exist in case of a sex worker and she can prosecute a man if he imposes himself on her. “Can a wife be put at a lower pedestal and be less empowered by law. So a sex worker acutally shines the light on the circumstance which is sought to be protected by the exception,” asked the judge. Justice Shakdher also asked, “I don’t know why we are shy of saying that this [exception] is violative of Article 14. I think it is time we stop walking on eggshells and say that if it is a rape, it is serious. Therefore, to say we will exclude a certain circumstance because of the inter-parties relationship is problematic”. However, Justice Shankar observed that the expectation of sex in a relationship between a customer and a sex worker with such expectation in a married relationship need not to be equated and told the amicus, “If we are creating an offence, there is a man who is going to be punished for it. The lady has suffered no doubt and we have to definitely empathise to the maximum degree with that, but we must keep in mind that what is the consequence is that a man will become liable to be punished with 10 years. So let’s not just look at this concept of discrimination by looking from the point of the lady”.