Sakshi

vs
Union Of India

26 May, 2004

Bench: Rajendra Babu Cj, G.P. Mathur

1. Facts:
● The case is Sakshi vs Union Of India, decided by the Supreme Court of
India on May 26, 2004.
● The petitioner, Sakshi, is an organization that provides legal, medical,
residential, and psychological support to women who are victims of sexual
abuse and violence.
● The respondents are the Union of India, the Ministry of Law and Justice,
and the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi.
● The main relief sought by the petitioner is a declaration that the term "sexual
intercourse" in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be
interpreted to include all forms of penetration, such as penile/vaginal,
penile/oral, penile/anal, finger/vaginal, finger/anal, and object/vaginal
penetration.
● The petitioner argues that the narrow interpretation of "sexual intercourse"
to only penile/vaginal penetration is contrary to the contemporary
understanding of rape as an act of humiliation, violation, and degradation,
and violates the sexual integrity and autonomy of women and children under
Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Issues:
The main issue in the case is whether the term "sexual intercourse" in
Section 375 of the IPC should be interpreted to include all forms of
penetration, or whether it should be limited to only penile/vaginal
penetration.

3. Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the term "sexual intercourse" in Section 375 of
the IPC should be interpreted to include all forms of penetration, such as
penile/vaginal, penile/oral, penile/anal, finger/vaginal, finger/anal, and
object/vaginal penetration.
4. Procedural History:
The case was filed as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by
the petitioner, Sakshi, in the Supreme Court of India.

5. Rationale:
The Court's rationale was that the narrow interpretation of "sexual
intercourse" to only penile/vaginal penetration runs contrary to the
contemporary understanding of rape as an act of humiliation, violation, and
degradation, and denies women and children access to adequate redress for
sexual abuse in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

6. Dicta:
The Court acknowledged the growing body of feminist legal theory and
jurisprudence that has established rape as an experience of humiliation,
degradation, and violation, rather than just an outdated notion of
penile/vaginal penetration.

7. Dissent:
There is no mention of a dissenting opinion in the case.

8. Party's Arguments:
● The petitioner, Sakshi, argued that the narrow interpretation of "sexual
intercourse" in Section 375 of the IPC is contrary to the contemporary
understanding of sexual abuse and violence, and violates the sexual integrity
and autonomy of women and children.
● The respondents, Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, and
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, are not mentioned as having presented
any specific arguments in the excerpt provided.

9. Judgement:
The Supreme Court granted the relief sought by the petitioner and issued a
declaration that the term "sexual intercourse" in Section 375 of the IPC
should be interpreted to include all forms of penetration, such as
penile/vaginal, penile/oral, penile/anal, finger/vaginal, finger/anal, and
object/vaginal penetration.