The state has 13 special courts to hear cases of atrocities against women. The state government has decided to start 100 fast-track courts in the next five years. The process is underway to reserve 25 of these 100 fast-track courts to exclusively deal with crimes against women. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original EssayThese are extensive measures taken by the legislature to safeguard state women, protect their modesty and provide them with a free environment. The changes have been made in accordance and in a form that empowers women themselves against crimes. Explanation of the terms "Sexual Intercourse" and "Penetration" These two terms were redefined after the 2013 amendment before 2013 sexual intercourse was understood only as penile-vaginal penetration. Courts have interpreted the term sexual intercourse as "mere minimal or partial penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudendal is sufficient to constitute 'sexual intercourse'." The courts have emphasized the fact that the depth of penetration is irrelevant. It is also provided that it is not necessary for lesions to be present in the private part of the woman to constitute rape. The hymen does not need to be broken. Therefore the essential condition of rape is penetration and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration will constitute attempted rape and not actual rape. These conditions were specifically mentioned by the Supreme Court in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Babulnath”. The Court in this case, delving into the essential ingredients of rape, observed that "To constitute the crime of rape it is not at all necessary for there to be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of sperm and rupture of the hymen. Even the slightest piercing carried out by a male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or the pudendal with or without emission of semen or even an attempt to penetrate the private part of the victim would be sufficient under Articles 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code Stando As things stand, it is entirely possible to legally commit the crime of rape even without causing injury to the genitals or leaving seminal stains." An important issue is the expansion of the scope of Article 375 to include any bodily penetration as rape. was raised in the case of Smt Sudesh Jhaku v. KCJ & Ors. The signatories wanted to broaden the scope of the definition to include penetration of any part of the male body into any orifice of the female body. This however was rejected by the court which was not in favor of changing the existing definition of the term. The court said that it was necessary to prevent chaos and confusion in the society regarding the new definition of rape and therefore section 375 should not be amended. If the logic of the Supreme Court verdict declaring marital rape of a child is considered correct, adult marital rape should no longer have legal sanction. The Court said it could not distinguish between a married and an unmarried child in the context of rape as it would create two classes of people, leading to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. This reasoning would also apply to adult women. Furthermore, if the Supreme Court holds that marriage is personal and not institutional, the same standard should apply in the context of adult women as well. If tradition cannot be used as an excuse to exempt sex with a wife.