A recent pronouncement from the Supreme Court of India has brought a sharp and necessary focus onto the misuse of rape laws, particularly in the aftermath of failed romantic relationships. Cautioning against the "disquieting tendency" to brand every acrimonious breakup as an instance of rape, the apex court has firmly reiterated the crucial distinction between a consensual relationship gone sour and the grave offence of sexual violence.
The ruling, delivered by a Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, came while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) and charge sheet against a lawyer accused of rape and criminal intimidation by a woman with whom he had a long-term, intimate relationship. The court held that the material on record "unmistakably indicates" a relationship that was consensual for years but later turned bitter.
Trivializing a Grave Offence
At the heart of the judgment is the court's concern that converting a failed romantic partnership into an offence of rape trivializes the seriousness of the crime itself. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only when there is genuine sexual violence, coercion, or a clear absence of free consent. The Bench stressed that to deploy the criminal justice machinery to settle personal discord not only inflicts an "indelible stigma and grave injustice" upon the accused but also dilutes the legal protection meant for victims of true sexual assault. This misuse, the court noted, is a "matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation."
The court pointed out that physical intimacy occurring during the course of a functioning, sustained relationship—in this case, spanning nearly three years—cannot be "retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage." The law must be applied judiciously, demanding credible evidence and not merely an aggrieved party’s perception after a mutual relationship ends in disappointment.
The Nuance of Consent and Promise of Marriage
The judgment also delved into the complex area of consent given under the promise of marriage. In Indian society, the court acknowledged, women often consent to relationships on the assurance of marriage, and such consent can stand vitiated if it is proven that the promise was made in bad faith—that is, with no genuine intention of fulfilling it, but solely to exploit the woman.
However, the Court meticulously drew a line between a false promise made with an initial deceitful intent and a subsequent breach of promise where the intention to marry may have been genuine but the circumstances or relationship later changed, leading to a breakup. In the case at hand, the consistent and voluntary participation of the woman, who continued the relationship for years, suggested a consensual bond rather than one obtained under a misconception of fact due to a deceitful promise.
Greater Awareness
The Supreme Court’s caution serves as a critical awareness call for all stakeholders—the public, the police, and the judiciary.
For the public, particularly young adults engaging in intimate relationships, the ruling highlights the need for a clear understanding of what constitutes genuine consent and the legal risks associated with invoking the stringent provisions of rape law to address personal heartbreak. Relationships, even those involving intimacy, are primarily a matter of personal choice and contract, not a guaranteed precursor to marriage, and their failure does not automatically transform consent into coercion.
For the criminal justice system, the judgment is a firm reminder to distinguish carefully between cases of genuine sexual violence and those involving a consensual relationship that has become acrimonious. The protective scope of Section 376 of the IPC must remain sensitive to those genuinely aggrieved by a breach of trust and violation of dignity, but it must not be reduced to a tool for vengeance in cases of consensual breakups. The focus must always remain on whether the woman's consent was truly free, or whether it was vitiated by an intention to deceive from the outset of the physical relationship.
Ultimately, the ruling reaffirms a fundamental legal principle: a breakup, no matter how painful or unjust, cannot be criminalized as rape unless the initial consent for physical intimacy was fundamentally flawed due to coercion or deliberate, malicious fraud. It is a necessary safeguard against the overreach of criminal law into the realm of personal life, ensuring that the gravest criminal charge remains reserved for the gravest offence.
