Why only men should face jail under amended 'false promise of marriage' provision, HC asks
The court also sought an explanation as to why consensual sexual relationships between adults should be treated as a criminal offence on the grounds of a false promise of marriage.
The High Court today (4 August) questioned the constitutional validity of a provision that prescribes up to seven years' imprisonment only for men accused of having sexual relations based on a false promise of marriage.
A High Court bench led by Justice Habibul Gani issued the rule after hearing a writ petition challenging the provision.
The court also sought an explanation as to why consensual sexual relationships between adults should be treated as a criminal offence on the grounds of a false promise of marriage, and why the provision introduced through the Women and Children Repression Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2026 should not be struck down.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The court had earlier issued a rule after the preliminary hearing on the same petition. Today's supplementary rule specifically sought responses on the constitutional validity of the amended provision.
Representing the petitioner, Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan argued that the provision is vague, discriminatory and inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution because it criminalises consensual relationships between adults on the basis of an alleged false promise of marriage.
According to the writ petition, the provision's constitutional validity has been challenged on the grounds that it infringes fundamental rights by treating consensual private relationships between adults as criminal offences.
