The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern about the growing trend of criminal law being invoked when consensual relationships between adults turn sour. The court made these significant observations while quashing criminal proceedings against a Delhi-based lawyer who was accused of rape by his client.
Case Background and Court's Rationale
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan delivered the judgment on Monday, putting an end to the rape case filed against the lawyer. The woman complainant had alleged that she entered into a physical relationship with her lawyer after he promised to marry her, but he later backed out from the commitment.
Interestingly, the lawyer was representing the woman in her divorce proceedings when their relationship developed. The court noted that this was not a case where someone was lured solely for physical gratification and then abandoned. The relationship had continued for three years during which both individuals remained emotionally involved and maintained close contact.
Court's Strong Stance on Misuse of Rape Laws
The Supreme Court clearly stated that physical intimacy occurring during a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship eventually failed to result in marriage. The bench emphasized that they have repeatedly noticed the disturbing tendency where failed or broken relationships are being given criminal colors.
"The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion or absence of free consent," the court asserted. It warned that converting every sour relationship into a rape offence not only trivializes the seriousness of the crime but also inflicts permanent stigma and grave injustice upon the accused.
Balancing Perspective on Marriage Promises
While highlighting the misuse of criminal laws, the court also acknowledged the social and cultural significance of marriage in Indian society. It recognized that women often place complete trust in their partners and consent to physical intimacy based on the assurance that the relationship would culminate in lawful marriage.
The court clarified that consent becomes conditional rather than absolute when it's based on the promise of marriage. Such consent can be considered invalid if it's proven that the marriage promise was illusory, made in bad faith, and with no genuine intention of fulfillment - created solely to exploit the woman.
The judgment stressed that the law must remain sensitive to genuine cases where trust has been breached and dignity violated. However, the application of this principle must rely on credible evidence rather than mere allegations after a relationship fails.
This landmark judgment brings crucial clarity to the interpretation of consent in relationships and aims to prevent the misuse of serious criminal provisions in personal disputes between adults.
