Home / News / Nothing wrong in pre-marital sex, says Supreme Court

Nothing wrong in pre-marital sex, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a sensational judgement that will have far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court on Tuesday opined that there is nothing wrong in a man and woman having pre-marital sex and living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence.

“When two adult people want to live together, what is wrong? Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence,” a three judge bench of chief justice K G Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan observed. The court said even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology. The apex court said there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.

The apex court made the observation while reserving its judgement on a special leave petiton filed by noted south Indian actress Khusboo seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed pre-maritial sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005.

The judges grilled the counsel for some of the complainants in the case and repeatedly stressed that the perceived immoral activities cannot be branded as offence. The argument of the counsel was that her comments allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people leading to decay in moral values and country’s ethos.

“Please tell us what is the offence and under which section? Living together is a right to life,” the apex court said apparently referring to Article 21 which granted right to life and liberty as a Fundamental Right.

The apex court further said the views expressed by Khusboo were personal. “How does it concern you. We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law ?” the bench asked the counsel. The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any girls eloped from their homes after the said interview. “How many homes have been affected can you tell us,” the Bench asked while enquiring whether the complainants had daughters. When the response was in the negative, they shot back, “Then, how are you adversely affected?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Pinterest