Author: spoovayya@gmail.com

Traffic congestion has become a common feature of urban life in India, with major cities struggling to manage overcrowded roads, long commute times, and frustrated commuters. The rapid urbanization of the country has led to a surge in the number of vehicles on the road. Unfortunately, this increase in vehicular traffic has far outpaced the expansion of infrastructure, resulting in severe congestion. Traffic congestion has
emerged as a significant challenge in Indian cities, adversely impacting the quality of life, economic productivity, and environmental sustainability.

The root causes of traffic congestion can be traced to factors such as high population and the absence of efficient public transportation. This forces many people to rely on private vehicles, adding to the congestion. Additionally, the prioritization of VIP movement, especially in capital cities, often causes significant traffic disruptions, aggravating the problem further.

The Time Indians Waste on Road

Kolkata has been identified as Asia’s most congested city, according to the 2024 TomTom Traffic Index, overtaking Bengaluru. The average speed in Kolkata is just 17.4 km/h, making a 10-kilometer journey take over 34 minutes. Similarly, in Bengaluru, a 10-kilometer trip takes an average of 34 minutes and 10 seconds, while in Pune, it takes 33 minutes and 22 seconds. The TomTom Traffic Index evaluates congestion using both
static factors, such as physical road infrastructure and city layouts, and dynamic factors, including peak-hour traffic, weather conditions, and urban mobility patterns. This report emphasizes the urgent need for strategic urban planning to alleviate congestion and improve mobility in India’s rapidly expanding cities. Upgrading infrastructure and adopting sustainable urbanization strategies could make daily commuting more efficient and enhance the overall quality of life. The report also highlights the annual time lost due to rush-hour traffic. An average resident of Bengaluru loses 117 hours a year stuck in traffic, while those living in Kolkata and Pune lose 110 and 108 hours, respectively. These wasted hours have significant implications for productivity, quality of life, and the environment. Prolonged time spent in traffic reduces overall productivity and affects physical and mental well-being. Additionally, vehicles idling in traffic contribute to higher levels of air pollution,exacerbating environmental issues.

Traffic bottlenecks caused by poor infrastructure and the rising number of vehicles are compounded by disruptions due to VIP movements. Roads are often blocked to facilitate the smooth passage of dignitaries, further straining an already overburdened traffic system.

Who is a VIP?

The Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”), on 06.03.2013, in answer to the starred question number 134 as to what is the criteria and mechanism for deciding status of a VIP and VVIP, answered that “In so far as security cover provided by the Union Government is concerned, there is no official nomenclature whereby any such status as a VVIP or VIP is attributed to an individual. Security is provided to certain categories of individuals on positional basis including Union Ministers, Chief Justice and Justices of Supreme Court.Etc. Other individual are provided security on the basis of threat assessment. State Governments have similar mechanisms for assessing the threat perception and providing security to protectees under their jurisdiction”

In cases where the central government decides to extend security to an individual, the level of security needed by any individual is decided by the MHA, based on inputs received from intelligence agencies which include the Intelligence Bureau (“IB”) and Research and Analysis Wing (“R&AW”). The intelligence inputs that these agencies generate, particularly in cases where VIP security is involved, is neither put out in the public domain nor is it open to scrutiny by any other agency. Indian intelligence agencies are not accountable to any statutory body, and are subject only to the internal oversight of the MHA and the Ministry of External Affairs (“MEA”). Because of this opacity in functioning, and the fact that there is virtually no accountability except to the government in power, VIP security is open to manipulation by the executive. Many protectees, it has been alleged, are under security cover purely for political or “prestige”reasons, and not necessarily because of any genuine threat. In the name of providing security to VIPs, it is usual in India to block roads for the convoy of these VIPs which in turn increases the time for commute in India.

In the Name of Security, Can Roads be Blocked for VIP Travel?

Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of movement throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable restrictions. The MHA, on 16.03.2016, in an answer to unstarred question number 2127, has set out guidelines for blockage of roads during movement of VIPs in Delhi. Even though the question and answer is restricted to Delhi, this showers light on when roads be completely blocked for VIP travel. It was answered that “stoppage of traffic for giving safe passage to the protected persons should only be in the case of President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Prime Minister of India and the visiting foreign dignitaries who are given President’s/PM level
security cover. In all other cases, the traffic should not be stopped.” This answer emphasizes that unless it is President, Vice President, Prime Minister or foreign dignitaries who are given President’s/PM level security cover, roads should not be completely blocked. Emergency services like ambulance and Fire & Rescue vehicles are given priority even in the case of VIP traffic restrictions.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 form the legal framework governing motor vehicles and road-related matters in India. However, these laws do not provide provisions for road blockages or any special privileges for VIP escorts. The use of red beacon lights, which was previously permitted on vehicles of dignitaries under Rule 108 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, was eventually abolished by the Central Government through notification GSR 423(E) dated April 20,2017. Emergency vehicles, such as ambulances, remain exempt from this prohibition, allowing them to use red lights for critical services.

The VIP First Culture and Democracy

The ‘VIP first’ culture is not suitable for a democracy. This creates an atmosphere of difference of ‘being ruled’ and the ‘one who rules’. This comes from the colonial hangover of the armchair bureaucracy and public servants. The ‘VIP first’ culture had created an atmosphere of disdain among the people and had slowly permeated into the psyche of the bureaucracy and politicians who started considering themselves to be above the system. But neither the Constitution of India nor any laws allow this VIP Culture. In Abhay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 15 SCC 435 the Supreme Court described red beacon lights as the “red menace,” symbolizing a misuse of authority. The Court critically analyzed their use, emphasizing that such symbols perpetuate a colonial Raj Mentality; and contradict the republican values of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution. The judgment highlighted that allowing privileges such as red beacons and sirens to individuals beyond high constitutional functionaries creates unjustified distinctions between citizens.

The Court further clarified that the term “high dignitaries” should be restricted to constitutional office holders, such as the President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and their equivalents in the States. It ruled that the use of such symbols must be strictly limited to official duties. Moreover, the Court directed the Central and State Governments to amend their rules and notifications to reflect constitutional principles and enforce stricter measures to prevent misuse. By urging deterrent penalties, the Court reinforced the importance of upholding equality and the republican ethos in governance.

Conclusion

There should be a complete rejection of VIP culture. All leaders and administrators must imbibe democratic values, which are the foundational principles of the largest democracy. When the ruling classes refuse to embrace and embody the concept of political equality as a way of life, it goes contrary to the constitutional ideas of democracy . Inspiration can be drawn from countries like Norway and Finland, where leaders, such as the Prime Minister, commute via metro. The humble behaviour of leaders in Western countries should be popularized in India to encourage a shift
towards egalitarian practices.

At the same time, the real security threats against VIPs must be acknowledged and considered. Security measures are essential during VIP movements to ensure their safety. Pre-event planning is crucial, with advance notifications informing the public about upcoming VIP movements and expected traffic disruptions through social media, traffic apps, and local news channels. Route optimization can be employed by planning alternative routes for both commuters and VIP convoys to minimize intersections and reduce congestion. Timing adjustments, such as scheduling VIP movements during off-peak hours, late evenings, or early mornings, can also significantly lower the impact on daily commuters.

VIP traffic movement is symptomatic of a VIP culture, opposed to the ideals of the egalitarian society. Ideally, there should no VIP traffic movement or VIP culture. If at all necessary for security, the option should be exercised with caution and sparingly.

In Karnataka in 2022, a landmark decision unfolded as Justice M. Nagaprasanna declared the marital rape exception in India’s legal system to be regressive and violative of the right to equality. The case centered around a woman who accused her husband, Hrishikesh Sahoo,of rape and other offenses—a bold move that challenged long-held legal norms and ignited a nationwide debate on the sanctity of marriage versus individual rights.

Marital rape refers to non-consensual sexual acts committed by a spouse against their partner within the bounds of marriage. Unlike other forms of sexual violence, marital rape occurs in a relationship traditionally perceived as intimate and consensual by default. This distinction has historically led to legal systems worldwide grappling with whether to criminalize such acts, often balancing the preservation of marital unity against the protection
of individual autonomy and bodily integrity. The crux of the debate in India hinges on whether marital rape should be criminalized in the same way as other forms of rape. This question sits at the intersection of legal recognitio, human rights, and societal norms. On one side, proponents argue that failing to criminalize
marital rape denies married women the same legal protections afforded to others, undermining their autonomy and equality before the law. On the other, the government contends that labeling such acts as “rape” within marriage is excessively harsh and could disrupt the institution of marriage, suggesting that existing laws suffice to address violations of consent between spouses. We explore the multifaceted arguments surrounding the criminalization of marital rape in India, delving into legal precedents, constitutional rights, and the evolving societal understanding of marriage and personal liberty.

In India, the legal framework currently does not recognize marital rape as a criminal offense. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which defines rape, includes an exception clause stating that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, provided she is over 18 years of age, is not rape. Under the IPC, the exception stated that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife are not considered rape if the wife is
not under 15 years of age. Under the BNS, any sexual activity by a man with his wife who is
under eighteen years old is considered rape, thereby aligning the marital age of consent with
the general legal age of consent. The change reflects a shift towards greater protection of

1 Challenge to the Marital Rape Exception – Supreme Court Observer

minors within marriage, acknowledging that consent cannot be legally given by individuals
under eighteen, even within the context of marriage.

This “marital rape exception” presumes automatic consent within marriage, effectively
denying married women the legal recourse available to others in cases of non-consensual
sex.
Indian courts have historically viewed sexual relations within marriage as a marital duty.
Refusal to engage in sexual activity without a “valid reason” has often been construed as
“mental cruelty,” providing grounds for divorce under family laws. This perspective reinforces
the notion that consent is inherent in marriage, undermining a woman’s autonomy over her
own body.

Attempts to challenge this legal stance have faced resistance. The Justice Verma
Committee in 2013 recommended criminalizing marital rape, but these suggestions were not
incorporated into law. 2 In 2022, the Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict on the
constitutionality of the marital rape exception, highlighting the ongoing legal debate. The
Supreme Court of India is currently hearing petitions on this matter, signaling a potential shift
in the legal approach to marital rape.

International Landscape:
Globally, there has been a significant movement towards recognizing marital rape as a
crime. Many countries have abolished legal exceptions that previously protected spouses
from rape charges, acknowledging that consent cannot be presumed within marriage.
Nations like the United Kingdom and South Africa have criminalized marital rape, affirming
that all individuals have the right to bodily autonomy regardless of their marital status. 3
However, challenges persist internationally. In some jurisdictions where marital rape is
illegal, courts have been observed to impose lighter sentences for marital rape compared to
other rape cases, reflecting lingering societal biases about marriage and consent.
Enforcement and societal attitudes continue to impact the effectiveness of these laws.

2 Justice Verma Committee Report Summary
3 Human Rights of Women and the Phenomenon of Marital Rape in Ethiopia

Arguments For Criminalization of Marital Rape

Ethical Perspective:
From an ethical standpoint, criminalizing marital rape is essential for recognizing and
respecting individual autonomy and human rights. Marriage should not be construed as a
blanket consent to sexual activity; rather, it should be viewed as a partnership based on
mutual respect and consent. The notion that a spouse can be subjected to sexual violence
undermines the dignity and agency of individuals, particularly women, who have historically
been marginalized within patriarchal structures. By criminalizing marital rape, the law affirms
that all individuals, regardless of marital status, have the right to control their own bodies and
make decisions about their sexual relationships.

Social Perspective:
Socially, the criminalization of marital rape can catalyze a significant shift in societal attitudes
towards marriage and consent. It challenges the entrenched belief that marriage grants men
entitlement to sexual access, thereby promoting gender equality and respect for personal
autonomy. Legal recognition of marital rape can empower victims to speak out and seek
justice, reducing the stigma associated with reporting such incidents. This shift can lead to
increased awareness and education about consent, fostering a culture that values mutual
respect and equality in relationships.

Moreover, the existence of laws against marital rape can help dismantle harmful stereotypes
and cultural norms that perpetuate violence against women. By framing marital rape as a
crime, society can begin to view it as a serious violation of rights rather than a private matter,
encouraging community support for victims and accountability for offenders.

Arguments Against Criminalization of Marital Rape

Cultural Considerations:
One of the primary arguments against the criminalization of marital rape is the deeply
ingrained cultural belief that marriage is a sacred institution. Many proponents of this view
argue that the concept of marital rape contradicts traditional values that emphasize the
sanctity of marriage and the roles of spouses within it. In many societies, including India,
marriage is often seen as a union that entails certain obligations, including sexual relations.
Critics argue that imposing Western notions of marital rape may not be suitable for Indian

society, where cultural norms and values differ significantly. They contend that such
legislation could disrupt familial structures and societal harmony, as it challenges long-
standing beliefs about marital roles and responsibilities. The affidavit filed by the Central
Government also has been on similar lines.

Legal Considerations:
From a legal perspective, opponents argue that criminalizing marital rape could lead to
misuse of the law, potentially resulting in false accusations. Concerns have been raised that
such laws might empower one gender over another, leading to a situation where men could
be unjustly accused and harassed under the guise of legal protection. The existing legal
framework already provides remedies for domestic violence and abuse, such as Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005. It is argued that these laws are sufficient to address issues of violence within marriage
without the need for additional criminalization of marital rape.

Practical Considerations:
Practically, the enforcement of laws against marital rape poses significant challenges. The
difficulties in proving cases of marital rape, given the private nature of marital relationships
and the lack of physical evidence in many instances, cannot be ignored. This can lead to a
high rate of acquittals and may discourage victims from coming forward due to fear of not
being believed or facing societal backlash. Additionally, there are concerns that criminalizing
marital rape could place undue stress on the institution of marriage, leading to increased
family disputes and potential breakdowns in relationships.

Role of the State and Legal Duties

The constitutional role of the state in ensuring the protection of its citizens encompasses not
only public but also private spaces, such as the marital home. Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been expansively
interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to live with human dignity and to be
free from all forms of violence, including those occurring within private spaces like marriage.
This interpretation was further reinforced in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) vs Union of India (2017), 4 where the right to privacy was declared a fundamental right
under Article 21. The Court noted that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the

4 (2017) 10 SCC 1; 2017 SCC OnLine SC 996

individual is in a domestic setting. This ruling underscores the state’s duty to protect
personal liberties irrespective of the private or public nature of the space.

Furthermore, in Independent Thought vs Union of India (2017) 5 , the Supreme Court’s
decision to criminalize sexual intercourse with a minor wife can be viewed as an
acknowledgment that marital rape violates the rights guaranteed under Article 21. By
ensuring that laws evolve to protect individuals against sexual crimes within marriage, the
judiciary has highlighted the state’s constitutional duty to enforce laws that uphold the dignity
and safety of all individuals, emphasizing that the sanctity of marriage cannot be a shield for
marital rape.

Thus, the state’s constitutional duties are not restricted to public safety but extend deeply
into the realms of private life, ensuring that personal safety and dignity are maintained in all
settings, including within the marital context. This progressive interpretation by the judiciary
acts as a directive for the state to create and enforce laws that protect against all forms of
violence, thereby fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.

In this case, the Supreme Court decriminalised adultery, emphasizing that a law that treats a
husband as the master of his wife is unconstitutional. This judgment, while not directly
addressing marital rape, has implications for the autonomy and agency of a married woman,
reinforcing the notion that consent and personal liberty are paramount, even within the
bounds of marriage.

3. The petition in a recent case (RIT Foundation vs Union of India) before the Delhi High
Court challenged the exemption of marital rape under Section 375 of the IPC. The
petitioners argued that this exemption violates the Constitution of India’s guarantees of
equality, non-discrimination, and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The
Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict, and the issue of marital rape is now being
considered by the Supreme Court of India. The decision of the Supreme Court is highly
anticipated as it has the potential to significantly reshape the legal landscape regarding
marital rape in India. The government of India has officially opposed the criminalisation of
marital rape in India before the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The discussion about making marital rape illegal in India is crucial, highlighting a conflict
between old customs and the advancement of individual rights. The current law, which does
not consider marital rape a crime, goes against the principles of equality and freedom
guaranteed by the Constitution, and fails to protect the basic human right of controlling one’s
own body. Both ethical reasons and examples from other countries support making marital
rape illegal, stressing that marriage does not automatically imply consent.

While there are cultural and practical difficulties in changing the law, these issues must be
balanced against the government’s duty to protect its people in both public and private
settings. Key court decisions have gradually supported the view that personal freedoms
extend into marriage, indicating a shift towards treating marriage as a partnership based on
mutual consent and respect.

Making marital rape a crime is not just about changing a law; it’s about transforming societal
attitudes. It emphasizes that marriage should be an equal partnership, where both people
agree on their physical relationship. Moving forward with this change is vital for promoting
gender equality, respecting personal dignity, and upholding the constitutional values at the
heart of Indian democracy. The choices made in addressing this issue will greatly influence
justice and the protection of rights for everyone in the country.

As Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud has left an indelible mark on the judicial landscape, presiding over some of the most transformative verdicts in contemporary times. With his retirement set for November 11, 2024, we reflect on his legacy through five landmark constitutional bench cases that he led.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!