Why punishing only men for consensual sex on promise of marriage should not be declared illegal: HC

The High Court has issued a rule asking why the legal provision that punishes only men for engaging in sexual relations on the promise of marriage should not be declared unlawful.

The court also questioned why a provision allowing consensual relationships between adults to later be treated as a criminal offence on the basis of an allegation of a false promise of marriage should not be declared invalid.

The rule further asks why the relevant provision, introduced through the Women and Children Repression Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2026, should not be declared unconstitutional, ineffective and void.

The rule was issued by a High Court bench led by Justice Habibul Gani on Tuesday.

The respondents have been directed to explain why the rule should not be made absolute.

Earlier, following a preliminary hearing on a writ petition filed on the same issue, the High Court had issued a rule. Tuesday's supplementary rule more clearly raises the question of the constitutional validity of the amended provision.

The writ petition was argued by Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan.

According to the petition, the provision criminalising consensual relationships between adult men and women solely on the basis of an alleged false promise of marriage is vague and discriminatory. It also contends that the provision conflicts with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

According to lawyer Ishrat Hasan, although the amended law makes sexual relations induced by the promise of marriage a criminal offence, it does not clearly define the circumstances in which the offence is deemed to have occurred.

She argued that the law fails to clarify whether the offence is committed simply because two adults engage in sexual relations after discussing marriage, or only when the promise of marriage is later broken.

The lawyer also questioned why, if an adult woman voluntarily consents to a sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage, only the male partner should face a prison sentence of up to seven years.

She argued that such relationships involve the consent of both parties, and that treating only one participant as a criminal is inconsistent with the principles of justice.

Ishrat Hasan further submitted that the provision portrays an adult woman as though she lacks the capacity to make her own decisions and becomes involved in a sexual relationship solely because she was misled by a man.

In reality, she argued, both parties participate in a consensual relationship.

In his view, while the State may, as a matter of public policy, choose to discourage romantic or sexual relationships between consenting adults, it is discriminatory to impose criminal liability on only one party in such cases.

The final approval for the draft amendment to the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act was granted on 20 March 2025. The amendment introduced criminal penalties for engaging in sexual relations by inducing someone with the promise of marriage.

However, the petitioner argues that the amended provision fails to clearly define the essential elements and scope of the offence. As a result, uncertainty remains over the point at which a consensual relationship between adults could become a criminal offence.

The government and the other respondents will now have to explain these issues in response to the High Court's rule. The constitutional validity of the amended provision will ultimately depend on the court's decision following those submissions and subsequent hearings.