SC ruling on consent and promise of marriage Opens a fresh can of worms?

In a landmark decision that has ignited widespread discussion across India, the Supreme Court has ruled that a married woman cannot file a rape case against a man based on a false promise of marriage if she entered into a physical relationship with him. The apex court emphasized that such claims are legally untenable because the woman is ineligible to marry due to her existing marriage. This ruling stems from Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits marriage if either party has a living spouse.

The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the verdict while quashing criminal proceedings against a lawyer accused by a woman advocate of rape under the pretext of marriage. The case originated from an FIR filed in Bilaspur district, Chhattisgarh, in February 2025. The complainant, a married woman and herself a lawyer, alleged that the accused had engaged in sexual relations with her after promising marriage, only to later renege. The Supreme Court described this as a "classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious."

It noted that both parties were aware of the complainant's marital status when the relationship began, rendering any promise of marriage unenforceable. The court further observed that even if a false promise were assumed, it could not be acted upon since the woman was ineligible for marriage from the date of the alleged offense until the FIR's registration. Beyond the specifics of the case, the Supreme Court issued a broader caution to judges, urging extreme care in identifying genuine rape cases.

The bench stressed that the essential ingredients of the offense must be clearly established, particularly in light of the potential misuse of rape laws today. This aspect of the ruling has drawn attention to the balance between protecting women from exploitation and preventing the criminal justice system from being weaponized in personal disputes. The court also remarked that both individuals involved should have exercised restraint rather than involving the state in their conflict, highlighting the personal nature of the fallout.

The decision has prompted a heated debate on whether it draws a firm line against the misuse of rape laws or risks narrowing protections for women in complex relationships. To explore these perspectives, experts have weighed in. An author and former member of the National Commission for Women (NCW), strongly opposes the court's stance. She argues that the ruling overlooks the nuances of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise of marriage without intent to fulfill it. She opined that deceit can include inducements like luring with promises of a better life, and in India, many women, even those in toxic marriages, are naive and easily believe such assurances.

Another doctor and female rights activist contends that if a woman in a troubled marriage enters a relationship based on a man's promise to marry her after she divorces, and she acts on that by disrupting her marital life, it constitutes exploitation. She emphasizes that the section's spirit is to advance justice for women and deter men from exploitative conduct. Dismissing the idea that consent negates the crime, she points out that consent obtained under deception is invalid. In her view, quashing the FIR prematurely prevents a trial from uncovering whether there was genuine intent or mere deception, potentially denying justice to vulnerable women who face high levels of domestic violence, as indicated by NCW surveys. On the other side, a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India, supports the ruling, asserting that it correctly distinguishes between consensual relationships and rape. He defines rape as physical sexual abuse without consent, emphasizing that consensual relations between adults are not offenses. In this case, where both parties were lawyers—well-versed in legal intricacies—the relationship was entered into willingly. He further argues that even if a promise of marriage was made, it was incapable of being performed due to the woman's existing marriage, a fact she, as a legal professional, would have understood.

He warns against assuming deception without evidence, noting that the criminal justice system's protections for women are not absolute and must adhere to parameters like lack of consent or force. He highlights that the complainant was not a naive individual but an informed adult, and turning a soured consensual affair into a rape allegation misuses the law. The Supreme Court's observation that the parties were not "persons on the street" unaware of legal necessities reinforces this, he says. He opined that ultimately, the ruling prevents the criminal justice system from being dragged into personal acrimonies, preserving its integrity for genuine cases.

As the debate unfolds, questions linger about the ruling's potential as a precedent. Will it empower courts to scrutinize complaints more rigorously, reducing misuse, or could it discourage women in complicated situations from seeking justice? The Supreme Court's call for judicial caution underscores the need for balance in an era where relationship dynamics are increasingly complex. While the verdict addresses a specific scenario involving married individuals, its ripple effects may influence how consent, deception, and promises are interpreted in broader criminal law contexts. As society grapples with these issues, the discussion highlights the ongoing tension between legal protections and personal accountability in intimate relationships.