India’s Supreme Court has ruled that the end of a consensual relationship cannot, by itself, become grounds for prosecuting a partner for rape, warning against the growing misuse of criminal law to settle personal scores after relationships break down, Hindustan Times reports.
The ruling came on Friday in a Kerala case involving a man who had lived with a woman for nearly seven years before ending their relationship.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan observed that consensual relationships that turn sour are increasingly being retrospectively examined to identify grounds that could be construed as sexual violence or assault.
“We wish to note a worrying trend in recent years wherein consensual relationships that have come to an end are retrospectively combed with a fine tooth so as to identify what can post-facto be construed as violence and sexual assault,” the bench said.
The case involved a man who began living with a woman in 1996. The woman was informed that he was already married, and the two subsequently entered into a consensual physical relationship.
In 2003, the man decided to end the relationship. Eight years later, the woman filed a rape complaint against him.
After the case had remained pending for years, the Supreme Court discharged the man of the rape charge, observing that the relationship was consensual and had eventually come to an end.
Describing the case as one of a consensual relationship that had perhaps been presented as a marriage to avoid social scrutiny or stigma, the court said a failed relationship could not automatically transform past consensual intimacy into rape.
“When every consensual relationship which sours is converted into an accusation of rape, it not only dilutes the gravity of the offence alleged or rather negates the very allegation of crime,” the judgment said.
The bench cautioned against turning criminal proceedings into instruments of retaliation following emotional disputes between consenting adults.
Justice Nagarathna, who authored the judgment, said courts must distinguish between genuine cases of sexual assault involving an absence of consent and situations where a person regrets having consented to sexual activity after a relationship ends.
The court stressed that genuine allegations of sexual violence must be pursued vigorously, while warning against using the justice system as a means of vengeance.
It also questioned whether a man could be denied the right to withdraw from a relationship simply because the partners had previously been physically intimate.
“Can it be said that the man had no right to withdraw from the relationship? Clearly not,” Justice Nagarathna said.
She added that physical intimacy during a consensual relationship could not retrospectively be classified as rape merely because the relationship had subsequently broken down.
The bench further expressed concern that the tendency to use criminal proceedings to settle personal disputes was increasing, despite previous judicial observations against such practices.
It noted that male accused often face substantial financial consequences when attempting to settle such cases, adding to concerns about the misuse of criminal law.
However, the court made clear that its observations did not undermine genuine allegations of sexual assault, which must be examined on the basis of the facts and evidence in each case.