In a groundbreaking legal decision, the Rajasthan High Court has underscored the supremacy of constitutional morality over societal norms in a recent criminal case presided over by Justice Birendra Kumar. This ruling sets a significant precedent in legal interpretation and societal values.
The case in question involved the dismissal of an FIR under Section 366 IPC, brought by the petitioner Ranveer, who utilized Section 482 Cr. P.C. to challenge the order due to being detained in an unrelated legal matter. Despite initial obstacles, the court considered the testimony of the alleged victim, referred to as respondent no.3, who provided an affidavit confirming her voluntary involvement in a cohabitational relationship with one of the accused, Sanjiv.
Drawing on legal precedents like Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 and Safi Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. 2018(6) SCC 368, the court stressed the significance of constitutional morality in cases pertaining to individual liberty and privacy.
Justice Birendra Kumar invoked the Supreme Court’s stance, stating that “constitutional morality should invariably take precedence over societal norms.” Additionally, the court referenced the case of S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Ors., affirming that while societal conventions may influence behavior, consensual relationships outside of marriage do not inherently constitute a legal offense, with the exception of instances of adultery.
Moreover, the judgment addressed the former Section 497 IPC, which prohibited adultery. The Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, which struck down Section 497 IPC, was highlighted as a significant legal development concerning marital relationships.
In concluding the judgment, Justice Birendra Kumar remarked, “Unless marriage is pleaded and proved, only marriage-like relationships such as living-in relationships would not come within the mischief of Section 494 IPC.” The court ultimately dismissed the applicant’s prayer, finding no merit in the case.
You May Also Like:
How Indian Courts Define A Married Woman’s Rightful Place
Hindu Marriage Act 1955
Supreme Court refutes the assertion that children of same-sex married couples will face negative impacts, citing the existing adoption rights of gay and lesbian individuals.
Guidelines Issued by Supreme Court for Protecting Couples, Stressing Non-Judgmental Approach