The Supreme Court on Friday held that the breakdown of a consensual relationship between adults cannot automatically turn earlier sexual acts into offences of rape, observing that courts are not entrusted with passing moral judgments on the personal choices made by individuals.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said adults were free to make decisions that could be wise or unwise, prudent or reckless, and must face the consequences of those choices. However, undesirable or emotionally painful outcomes did not, by themselves, justify the intervention of criminal law.
The observations came as the apex court discharged a Kerala-based man, Santosh Kumar NP, of charges including rape, cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a relationship that lasted between 1996 and 2003.
๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ด๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐
The bench emphasised that the judiciary's role was to determine whether the ingredients of a criminal offence had been established, rather than assess the morality of decisions made by consenting adults.
"It is trite to reiterate at this stage that this court has not been entrusted to pass moral judgment on the varying exercises of free choice, autonomy and agency by individuals in the country," it observed.
The court said adult men and women could freely make decisions that were "wise or unwise, prudent or reckless and considerate or callous".
Such decisions could lead to undesirable outcomes, unexpected circumstances or deeply hurtful experiences, but those consequences would not automatically transform the underlying conduct into criminal offences requiring state intervention.
๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐น๐ฎ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ
The Supreme Court cautioned against the growing tendency to invoke criminal proceedings following the breakdown of intimate relationships.
It said criminal law could not be used as a weapon to settle personal scores, exact revenge or compel an individual to act in a particular manner.
The bench observed that society and courts must discourage the weaponisation of criminal law following emotional discord between two consenting adults.
It also expressed concern that such disputes were increasingly resulting in criminal proceedings, with settlements sometimes involving substantial monetary payments by male accused persons.
The court said the legislature had never intended that consensual sexual acts occurring during mutually affectionate relationships should be retrospectively criminalised merely because the relationship subsequently ended.
๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ผ๐น๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป-๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฝ
The case concerned a woman who alleged that Santosh Kumar had concealed his earlier marriage and entered into a second marriage with her while the first was still subsisting.
According to the prosecution, the woman, who was divorced from an earlier marriage, claimed that the accused married her in Mysuru and subsequently cohabited with her as her husband between 1996 and 2003.
She alleged that he had fraudulently induced her to believe their marriage was legally valid and obtained her consent for sexual intercourse on that basis.
The allegations included rape, cheating and criminal breach of trust, with the complainant maintaining that her consent had been obtained through deception about the validity of the marriage.
However, the Supreme Court noted that the two had remained in a consensual relationship and lived together as husband and wife for several years before their relationship ended.
๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ผ๐ฏ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐ฝ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ
The bench clarified that its observations did not mean women deceived into sexual relationships or marriages were without legal protection.
It acknowledged that in Indian society, where marriage carries considerable social and cultural significance, a woman might consent to physical intimacy on the assurance of a legally valid marital relationship.
The court said such consent could be invalidated if the woman was genuinely kept unaware of the true nature of the marriage or of the man's existing marital relationship.
It recognised that genuine cases involving deception, betrayal of trust and compromised dignity could attract the protective provisions of Sections 376, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, the judges stressed that the application of these provisions must depend on the facts and evidence in each case, rather than allegations or moral assumptions alone.
The court distinguished between genuine deception affecting consent and the subsequent breakdown of a relationship that had been consensual.
๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐'๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ
Allowing Santosh Kumar's appeal, the Supreme Court held that the material on record did not establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
It found that the high court had erred in concluding that sufficient material existed to proceed against the accused and had dismissed his petitions on a misconceived basis.
"Prima facie, we hold that no case is made out against the appellant of having committed the said offences," the bench said.
The court further observed that the mere fact that a relationship had turned sour or acrimonious could not convert earlier consensual sexual acts into rape.
It said treating the eventual outcome of a relationship as the basis for determining the criminality of earlier consent would reverse the proper legal inquiry.
The judgment underscored that allegations of sexual offences must be examined against the statutory requirements and available evidence, while preserving legal remedies for genuine cases of fraud and coercion.
The bench consequently discharged Santosh Kumar of the criminal charges, holding that the breakdown of the relationship, without evidence establishing the alleged offences, could not justify continuing the prosecution.