India, May 9 -- In March 2026, CNN aired an investigation on drug-facilitated sexual violence committed on sleeping women by their husbands. One porn website with these videos had 62 million monthly visits. The investigation drew global outrage because it exposed how men weaponised marriage to commit sexual violence. In the US, where much of the core audience was based, the perpetrator could face charges for marital rape, alongside other charges. Videos of women being subjected to rape have increasingly been circulated on social media in India. In Mumbai, a woman was drugged and raped by her husband, which was recorded and uploaded onto a porn site. This is not an aberration in terms of who the perpetrator is. According to a recent report, in 95% of rape cases, the offender was known to the victim. Technology furthers this form of sexual violence by allowing perpetrators to form networks that record, sell, and circulate videos of the assault. It also makes law-enforcement more difficult, due to anonymity and easy cross-platform sharing. There are two separate offences in the Mumbai incident - rape, and filming and uploading the video. Problematically, the husband may be prosecuted only for the latter. Marital rape is not a crime in India, whereas under the Information Technology Act, sharing such videos can be penalised as spreading "obscene content". When the law refuses to recognise marital rape, such abuse remains hidden, minimised, or misclassified. In Hrishikesh Sahoo v. Union of India, the Supreme Court will decide whether the marital rape exception to Section 375 of the IPC violates the fundamental rights of married women. The Centre made three arguments in its response: Criminalising marital rape would destabilise marriage; the provision may be misused; and existing remedies under domestic violence and other penal provisions are sufficient. These arguments fail to account for basic points. First, protecting an abstract "institution" cannot justify denying autonomy and bodily integrity. Previously, a similar argument was used to resist divorce, on the ground that it would destabilise marriage. The law, however, evolved to recognise individual autonomy and that conduct within marriage may warrant legal separation. It should similarly evolve on non-consensual sex within marriage. More fundamentally, what is the sanctity of an institution that permits husbands to violate their wives without recourse to criminal law? Such an institution demands serious reconsideration. Second, the possibility of misuse exists in relation to all legal provisions and cannot justify denying protection. Third, while other laws may partially recognise elements of marital rape, it would be a symbolic and psychic assault on wives who have been raped to describe the violation merely as "domestic violence" or "sexual harassment". A spade must be called a spade, especially when the law has a definition for it. It is only by legal fiction that this spade is currently called something else. India must urgently repeal the marital rape exception and embed a clear understanding of consent within police training, judicial practice, and criminal law....