MARITAL RAPE

LANCET STUDY

“There is a clear need to provide continued support to a significant proportion of people who’ve had Covid-19, and to understand how vaccines, emerging treatments, and variants affect long-term health outcomes,” the scientist added.

While physical and mental health generally improved over time, the researchers found Covid-19 patients tended to have poorer health and quality of life than the general population. The persisting symptoms typically included fatigue, shortness of breath, and sleep difficulties.

The authors analysed the longterm health outcomes of hospitalised survivors as well as specific health impacts of Long Covid. The study included 1,192 participants with acute Covid-19 admitted to the Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan between January 7 and May 29, 2020, at six months, 12 months, and two years, according to the study. Six months after initially falling ill, 68% of participants reported at least one Long Covid symptom. By two years after infection, the reported prevalence of symptoms had fallen to 55%. Fatigue or muscle weakness were most often reported, and fell from 52% at six months to 30% at two years.

Regardless of the severity of their initial illness, 89% of participants returned to their original work at two years.

Two years after initially falling ill, patients with Covid-19 are generally in poorer health than the general population, with 31% reporting fatigue or muscle weakness and the same percentage reporting sleep difficulties.

Long Covid participants also more reported problems with their mobility (5%) or activity levels (4%) than those without long Covid (1% and 2% respectively).

“The study findings indicate that there is an urgent need to explore the pathogenesis of long Covid and develop effective interventions to reduce the risk of long Covid..,” said the authors.

Doctors in India said they too are seeing similar trends in Covid recovered persons. “Even after a year-and-a-half, I see Covid-recovered persons with complaints of fatigue, muscle weakness, disturbed sleep, anxiety, gastrointestinal issues etc. The symptoms are more severe for those who have had l ung involvement,” said Dr GC Khilnani, former head, department of pulmonary medicine, AIIMS, Delhi.

The authors, however, acknowledged limitations to their study, which among other things pointed that it being a single centre study from early in the pandemic, the findings may not directly extend to the long-term health outcomes of patients infected with later variants. sexually assaulted by their husbands. Several petitioners told HT that they would move the top court for a plausible conclusion to the case.

Mariam Dhawale, national general secretary of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), one of the petitioners, said, “We are disappointed that the violence that the married women undergo was not taken into consideration by the court and we shall surely appeal to the higher court.”

Justice Shakdher said it would be tragic if a married woman’s call for justice was not heard even 162 years after the enactment of IPC. “In every sense, marital rape exception, in my view, violates the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution… Marital rape with one stroke deprives nearly onehalf of the population of equal protection of the laws. The classification between married and unmarried women in the context of MRE is without doubt unreasonable,” he said in a 192page judgment.

“The fact that the law does not operate even-handedly for women who are similarly circumstanced i.e. subjected to forced sex is writ large and no amount of legal callisthenics will sustain MRE. Therefore, MRE is bad in law as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution,” the judge held.

On the submission that the husband has “conjugal expectation” to have sexual communion with his wife, he said it was tenable as long as the expectation was not equated to an unfettered right to have sex without consent.

“Conjugal expectations, though, legitimate during the subsistence of a joyful marriage, cannot be put at par with unbridled access and/or marital privilege claimed by the husband vis-a-vis his wife disregarding the circumstances which obtain at the given point in time as also her physical and mental condition,” justice Shakdher said.

In his 200-page judgment, justice Shankar said legitimate expectation of sex was an “inexorable incident of relationship” between a husband and wife, which distinguished it from other relationships.

“The petitioners’ case is premised on a fundamentally erroneous postulate, for which there is no support available, either statutory or precedential, that every act of non-consensual sex by any man with any woman is rape, the impugned exception does not violate Article 14, 19, 21, but is based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object both of the impugned Exception as well as Section 375 itself…,” justice Shankar said.

The judge said that an advisable middle path was carved out by the legislature and there was no reason to interfere with the arrangement.

“As the marriage is, nonetheless, subsisting, though the couple is not together, the legislature has chosen to prescribe a suitable lesser punishment for the offence. The exercise of legislative discretion is entirely in order, and, to my mind, the challenge to the vires of the provision has no legs, whatsoever, to stand on,” the judgment read.

The court was hearing petitions filed in 2015 by non-governmental organisation, RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women’s Association and two individuals. The trial began in 2016 and ended in 2022.

In 2017, the Union government opposed the pleas and said that India cannot blindly follow the west and criminalise marital rape as several factors have to be taken into account.

However, in January this year when the hearing resumed, the Centre informed the high court that marital rape cannot be made into a criminal offence until the Centre’s consultation with all stakeholders is complete.

Later, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, told the court that it is taking a “constructive approach” in the matter and sought time to reach a conclusion, adding that a half hearted reply would directly affect the citizens of the country.

In wake of this, the Centre on February 3, told the high court that the issue of criminalizing marital rape involves a socio-legal impact and intimate family relations which cannot be judged on the basis of some arguments by lawyers. It stated that a “comprehensive approach” is required rather than a strictly legal view to come to a conclusion.

Later on February 7, the court granted two weeks to the Centre to take a consultative stand on the issue. However, even then, the Centre’s stand continued to remain in limbo. On February 21, 2022, the court refused to give further time to the Union government and termed their stand as “Trishanku” — in limbo.

The petitioners argued that criminalising marital rape was about respecting the right of a wife to say “no”. “This case is about the moral right of a married woman to refuse unwanted forcible sexual intercourse. It is about respecting the right of a wife to say no and recognising that marriage is no longer a universal licence to ignore consent,” Nundy argued on January 31. Opposing the pleas, NGO Hridey, an intervenor, argued that offences concerning marriage stand on a different footing and the wisdom of Parliament in retaining the marital rape exception should not be doubted.