List of Current Affairs
Home / List of Current Affairs
Criminal Law
Rape On False Marriage Promise
10-Sep-2025
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
Recently, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that consensual sex on a genuine promise of marriage that later fails cannot be treated as rape, unless the promise was false and made with mala fide intent from the start. It quashed rape proceedings against an accused, holding that a mere breach of promise does not amount to deception.
- The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025).
What was the Background of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) ?
- A scheduled caste female student filed a private complaint in August 2014 against Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, alleging criminal acts that purportedly occurred in 2010.
- The complainant alleged that Kesarwani forcibly raped her, tearing her clothes despite her resistance and objections. She claimed he threatened to upload nude photographs online if she approached police, having allegedly recorded a video during the assault.
- Following the initial incident, Kesarwani allegedly promised to marry the complainant and requested her to accept him as her husband.
- The complainant stated she felt trapped with no alternative and began cohabiting with him as his wife.
- During their cohabitation period, she alleged continued sexual assault, including unnatural intercourse under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
- In 2011, when the complainant became pregnant, she requested formal marriage but Kesarwani allegedly refused and forced her to undergo abortion through medicines.
- Kesarwani obtained employment with N.J. Wealth Advisor Company in Faridabad during 2011. When her parents searched for matrimonial matches, she disclosed the situation and they consented to marriage with Kesarwani.
- The complainant visited Kesarwani's Faridabad office on 21st July 2010 to discuss marriage formalization. Kesarwani allegedly pre-arranged his parents and associates to be present during this meeting.
- These individuals allegedly subjected her to caste-based discrimination, making derogatory remarks about her scheduled caste status. They declared inter-community marriage impossible and used filthy language with casteist slurs.
- The complainant contacted Faridabad police for assistance during the confrontation. Police transported both parties to the station where officers stated refusal to marry would constitute a criminal offence.
- Under police pressure, Kesarwani initially agreed to marriage but subsequently withdrew consent. The complainant approached multiple authorities through registered letters in July 2014 but no action was taken.
- She filed a private complaint seeking prosecution under multiple IPC sections including 323 (hurt), 504 (insult), 376 (rape), 452 (trespass), 377 (unnatural offences), and 120B (conspiracy). Additional charges under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act were included. The four-year delay between alleged incidents and complaint filing became a crucial credibility issue.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Supreme Court observed that summoning persons on frivolous complaints tarnishes reputation and requires greater judicial scrutiny. Courts must examine cases with closer scrutiny, looking beyond mere averments to understand underlying circumstances. A clear distinction exists between rape and consensual intercourse involving marriage promises. Courts must carefully examine whether the accused genuinely intended marriage or harboured mala fide motives from inception.
- Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent constitutes an act of reason with deliberation, where the mind weighs good and evil aspects. Courts must distinguish between mere breach of promise and fulfilment of false promise made with deceptive intent. An accused can be convicted for rape only when the court concludes intention was mala fide with clandestine motives.
- There must be adequate evidence showing the accused had no intention of honouring the marriage promise from the initial stage. Circumstances may arise where a person with genuine intentions becomes unable to marry due to unavoidable circumstances. The Court established a four-step test requiring that material must be sound and indubitable, rule out charges, remain unrefuted, and show trial would abuse process.
- The complainant's refusal to accept Supreme Court notice indicated lack of seriousness from the beginning. The complaint failed to inspire confidence due to absence of material particulars and vague allegations. The unexplained four-year delay in filing complaint undermined credibility significantly. Lack of specific dates, places of incidents, and absence of independent corroborating evidence weakened the case.
- Not only was the appellant implicated but his parents were unnecessarily dragged into proceedings with unsubstantiated offences. Continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute gross abuse of legal process. The High Court should have exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings. Courts owe a duty to examine complaints with care when accused claim proceedings are frivolous or vexatious. Complainants with ulterior motives often ensure complaints are well-drafted to disclose necessary ingredients of alleged offences.
What is Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2024 (BNS) ?
- Section 69 criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promises of marriage made without genuine intention to fulfill such promises.
- This provision applies when sexual intercourse does not constitute rape but involves deception or fraudulent marriage promises.
- The section provides punishment of imprisonment up to ten years along with liability for fine.
- Section 69 specifically targets cases where consent is obtained through deliberate deception rather than force or coercion.
- The provision recognizes that consent obtained through fraud or false promises vitiate the apparent voluntary nature of sexual intercourse.
- This section fills a legal gap between consensual sexual intercourse and rape by addressing exploitative conduct involving deceptive practices.
- The offense under Section 69 requires proving that the accused never intended to fulfill the marriage promise from the initial stage.
What are the Essential Elements of Section 69 ?
- The first essential element requires proof of sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.
- The second element mandates that such sexual intercourse was obtained through deceitful means or false promise of marriage.
- The third element requires establishing that the accused had no genuine intention of fulfilling the marriage promise from the beginning.
- The fourth element specifies that the sexual intercourse must not constitute the offence of rape under existing statutory provisions.
- The fifth element demands demonstrating that the complainant's consent was obtained specifically due to deceitful means or false marriage promises.
- The statutory explanation clarifies that deceitful means includes inducement through false promises of employment, promotion, or marriage by concealing true identity.
- The prosecution must establish that the accused harboured mala fide intentions and clandestine motives from the inception of the relationship.
- The essential element of fraudulent intent distinguishes this offence from mere breach of promise or inability to marry due to unforeseen circumstances. The temporal aspect requires proving that deception existed at the time of sexual intercourse rather than merely subsequent change of mind.
- The causation element establishes that the complainant would not have consented to sexual intercourse without the false promise or deceptive representation. The section requires demonstrating that the accused deliberately employed deceptive tactics to obtain sexual favours under the guise of future marriage.
Constitutional Law
Article 16 of Constitution
10-Sep-2025
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
Recently, Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi held that reserved category candidates who use age relaxation to qualify cannot later claim selection in unreserved (general) seats if recruitment rules bar such migration. It set aside a High Court order that had allowed OBC candidates in an SSC Constable recruitment to be considered under the general category.
- The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Union Of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy (2025).
What was the Background of Union Of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy (2025) ?
- The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) published an employment notification for recruitment of Constables (General Duty) in various paramilitary forces including BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, NIA, SSF, and Rifleman positions in Assam Rifles. The recruitment process comprised physical tests, written examinations, and medical examinations.
- The employment notification prescribed an age limit of 18 to 23 years as on 01.08.2015 for eligible candidates. Age relaxation was provided to various reserved category candidates, with OBC candidates receiving a relaxation of 3 years, extending their upper age limit to 26 years.
- All respondent-writ petitioners belonged to the OBC category and availed the age relaxation benefit to participate in the recruitment process. Without this relaxation, they would not have been eligible to apply as they exceeded the general category age limit of 23 years.
- After the recruitment process concluded, these OBC candidates were declared unsuccessful as their scores were lower than the last selected candidate in the OBC category for their respective departments. However, their marks were higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved (general) category for those same departments.
- Claiming entitlement to migrate to the unreserved category based on their higher scores compared to general category candidates, the respondent-writ petitioners approached the High Court. They argued that merit should prevail and they should be considered for appointment in the unreserved category.
- The Union of India opposed this prayer, contending that since the respondents had applied in the OBC category after availing age relaxation, they could not be considered eligible for appointment in the unreserved category. The Union relied on Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated 01.07.1998, which explicitly barred such migration.
- The respondents had participated in the entire recruitment process without challenging the constitutional validity of the office memorandum that prohibited their migration to the general category. They only raised this issue after the results were declared and they found themselves in a position where migration would benefit them.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Supreme Court observed that the central issue was whether the High Court erred in applying the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP despite the existence of Office Memorandum dated 01th July 1998 which explicitly prohibited migration of reserved candidates who had availed age relaxation to unreserved category positions.
- The Court noted that Jitendra Kumar was decided based on specific statutory provisions and government instructions that expressly permitted such migration, whereas the present case was governed by the 1998 office memorandum which specifically barred such migration for candidates who had availed any relaxations.
- The Court emphasised that the ratio in a judgement must be read within the facts of a particular case and cannot have universal application. The Court observed that the principle in Jitendra Kumar could not be applied where express statutory bars existed, citing Deepa E.V. v. Union of India which held similar views.
- The Court observed that the High Court had mechanically applied the Jitendra Kumar ratio without appreciating the different factual matrix, particularly the existence of the office memorandum prohibiting migration.
- After analysing various precedents, the Court held that whether reserved candidates who avail relaxations may be recruited against unreserved seats depends on the facts of each case. Where no embargo exists in recruitment rules, such candidates scoring higher than the last selected unreserved candidate may migrate. However, where an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such candidates cannot migrate to general category seats.
- The Court concluded that since the respondents had availed age relaxation concessions and an express bar existed under the 1998 office memorandum, the High Court was wrong in permitting their consideration for unreserved category appointments.
What is Article 16 of Indian Constitution?
- Article 16(1) - Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment:
- This provision guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
- It was referenced to examine whether age and fee relaxations for reserved candidates violate the equality principle by creating disparate treatment.
- The provision establishes that relaxations operate as pre-competition eligibility concessions rather than merit-based advantages, maintaining the level-playing field once actual competition begins through written examinations.
- The clause ensures that government positions remain accessible to all qualified individuals on merit-based criteria without discrimination based on caste, religion, or other prohibited grounds.
- Article 16(4) - Enabling Provision for Reservation:
- This clause empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments in favour of backward classes not adequately represented in services. It creates a constitutional exception to Article 16(1), allowing affirmative action measures.
- Age and fee relaxations are characterized as "incidental and ancillary provisions" or "aids to reservation" that make the core reservation concept effective, enabling meaningful participation without compromising merit-based selection principles.
- The provision permits both direct reservation of posts and supportive measures like relaxed eligibility criteria to address historical disadvantages faced by backward classes.
- Article 16(2) - Non-discrimination Clause:
- This sub-clause prohibits discrimination in public employment on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
- The provision works in conjunction with Article 16(4) to ensure that while affirmative action is permitted for backward classes, no citizen faces discrimination in accessing public employment opportunities based on prohibited characteristics.
- Constitutional Balance:
- The interplay between Article 16(1) and 16(4) creates a constitutional framework that balances individual equality rights with collective affirmative action needs.
- This balance allows the State to implement reservation policies while ensuring that merit remains the primary criterion for selection, with relaxations serving only to expand the pool of eligible candidates rather than lowering selection standard
Case Laws Referenced
- Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010): Established that age and fee relaxations are "aids to reservation" enabling merit-based competition without affecting level-playing field, permitting migration to unreserved seats for higher-scoring candidates, but based on specific UP statutory framework that expressly allowed such migration.
- Deepa E. V. v. Union of India (2017): Distinguished Jitendra Kumar Singh, holding its principles inapplicable where express statutory bars exist, specifically noting that the 1998 office memorandum's prohibition rendered Jitendra Kumar's general principles irrelevant to recruitment processes with migration bars.
- Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018): Confirmed that Jitendra Kumar Singh's observations cannot assist reserved candidates seeking migration where recruitment rules contain express embargo provisions, emphasizing statutory schemes with contrary circulars cannot be extended beyond their specific contexts.
- Saurav Yadav v. State of UP (2021): Addressed women OBC candidates' adjustment against general category vacancies under horizontal reservation, permitting migration where candidates hadn't availed special benefits and no express prohibition existed in recruitment rules.