In a sequence of remarks which has prompted a national discourse, Indian Supreme Court has sounded a warning to people involved in pre-marital relationships. The Court’s position is anchored on a bitter fact: the thin legal distinction between the two extremes is also unclear, that is, between a consensual relationship and a consent that is vitiated and on the grounds a so-called “false promise of marriage.”
The Legal Context: A Dialogue Between Consent and Deception
The court has often been used to hear cases where a partner suggests exploitation under sexual terms when something fails to lead to marriage. The Court has explained:
- "False Promise" - a deception entered into when the couple is new, without a promise to become married.
- "Breach of Promise" will happen when one genuinely feels ready to marry, but can't because of obstacles (family opposition, incompatibility, etc.).
To advise people against "trusting anyone", and the legal bond of marriage in its place, is to point out that sexual autonomy also entails individual responsibility.
Key Takeaways from The Court's Observations:
In the light of this legal approach, the Court could reasonably have to say that it should strike a balance of discretion.
- Vulnerability of Youth: Many times, a long term live-in relationship takes place; relationships built on years of trust but it cannot actually be proven legally that a "breach of promise" occurred.
- Separating Lust from Commitment: The bench has observed that sexual intercourse as a result of mutual devotion or an intimacy arising from past or longterm physical intimacy is not the same term as rape just because the marriage did not occur.
- The Law Reform: Part of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Section 69 of the BNS has made the ‘sexual intercourse on the basis of false promise of marriage’ now separate from rape is offences having the punishment of up to 10 years.
Protecting Oneself
The judiciary’s fundamental message is not moral policing but legal literacy. In a transforming social landscape in which an expanding proportion of individuals live with their partner and no one is willing to give up their convenience, the Court recommends a certain degree of emotional and physical “due diligence.” Trust is foundational to any relationship, and yet it can never overshadow the knowledge that in the end legal outcomes are the result of recorded facts rather than verbal assurances and it’s not up to the courts to help us win.
The Supreme Court’s advice is a sobering reminder of the challenges of modern dating and the limitations of the law in “mending a broken heart.” The law can punish a fraudster, but it cannot simply put back time or emotional labor wasted on the wrong trust.
