The Supreme Court of India on Monday made pointed observations on premarital physical relationships while hearing a bail plea in a case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage, triggering a wider debate on consent, trust and the role of moral expectations in criminal law.
The court was examining a petition filed by a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman on the assurance that he would marry her. According to the prosecution, the two met through a matrimonial platform, developed a relationship and travelled together, during which they had a physical relationship. The woman later alleged that the accused never intended to marry her and had instead deceived her, amounting to rape under criminal law. Lower courts, including the trial court and the High Court, had earlier declined to grant bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie finding that the promise of marriage may have been false from the outset.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court made oral remarks questioning the decision to enter into a physical relationship before marriage. The bench observed that, in its view, a man and a woman remain strangers in the eyes of law until they are married, regardless of emotional closeness or assurances exchanged. The judges said people should exercise extreme caution and not place unquestioning trust in promises made before marriage. At one point, the court acknowledged that its approach might be considered old-fashioned, but maintained that such caution was necessary given the number of criminal cases arising out of failed relationships.
The court also questioned the conduct of the complainant, including her decision to travel abroad with the accused before marriage, noting that such facts would have to be examined in determining whether consent was given freely or was induced by deception. At the same time, the bench clarified that these were preliminary observations made in the context of a bail hearing and not final conclusions on guilt or innocence.
Significantly, the Supreme Court indicated discomfort with the growing tendency to convert relationship disputes into prolonged criminal trials when the facts suggest a consensual relationship that later broke down. It suggested that mediation or settlement could be explored, including the possibility of compensation, instead of pushing every such case to its punitive end. The matter was adjourned to allow the parties to consider this option.
From a legal perspective, the observations highlight a continuing tension in Indian jurisprudence between personal morality and statutory standards of consent. Indian criminal law does not prohibit consensual physical relationships between adults outside marriage. However, courts have consistently held that consent obtained on a false promise of marriage can amount to rape if it is shown that the promise was dishonest from the beginning. Determining this intent is fact-specific and often complex, especially at the bail stage.
The Supreme Court’s remarks do not alter the legal position on premarital relationships or consent, as oral observations during hearings do not constitute binding precedent. Nevertheless, the strong language used by the bench is likely to influence public discourse and may affect how trial courts frame questions of trust, conduct and responsibility in similar cases.
The hearing underscores the judiciary’s growing concern over the criminalisation of failed relationships, while simultaneously reflecting a conservative caution about premarital intimacy. As the case proceeds, the court’s final decision on bail will rest not on moral views but on whether the allegations disclose a clear case of deception that vitiated consent under criminal law.