Priyanka Saurabh
In recent years, India has witnessed a rise in rape cases where the accused is charged based on allegations of sexual relations under a false promise of marriage. These cases often involve consensual relationships that turn contentious when the promise of marriage is not fulfilled. The recent Allahabad High Court ruling in Atul Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), granting bail to an accused in such a case, has reignited debates on women’s autonomy and the reinforcement of gender stereotypes in judicial decisions.
According to the latest National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report, thousands of rape cases are registered annually on the grounds of false marriage promises. This raises critical questions about how courts differentiate between consensual relationships, deception, and rape. Judicial interpretation must carefully assess whether the accused had a genuine intent to marry or if he deliberately misled the complainant for sexual exploitation. A distinction must be made between an unfulfilled promise due to unforeseen circumstances and a deliberate act of fraud.
The Atul Gautam ruling contradicts Supreme Court guidelines, particularly the Aparna Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) case, which prohibits courts from compelling the accused and the survivor to communicate as a condition of bail. The Supreme Court has emphasized that bail conditions should not force victims into interactions that could lead to secondary trauma. However, similar precedents—such as Rama Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) and Abhishek v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024)—have created coercive situations where accused individuals were granted bail on the pretext of marrying the complainant, undermining the prosecution’s case and exposing survivors to further harm.
These judicial trends perpetuate patriarchal notions by treating rape as a loss of chastity rather than a violation of bodily autonomy. Courts have, in multiple instances, equated a victim’s rehabilitation with marriage, pressuring survivors into forced unions with their alleged abusers. Such rulings contradict Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to dignity and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has previously held that forced marriages violate constitutional rights, yet lower courts continue to reinforce this practice.
Viewing marriage as a remedy for sexual violence turns rape into a civil dispute rather than a serious crime. This is particularly problematic in conservative rural areas, where victims are often pressured by societal norms and judicial decisions to marry the accused. To ensure justice remains impartial and uninfluenced by social expectations, courts must adhere to established legal principles that prohibit marriage as a condition of bail. The Supreme Court’s Aparna Bhatt ruling explicitly warns against bail conditions that perpetuate gender stereotypes or force victims into unwanted relationships.
Beyond judicial reform, the state must strengthen welfare programs to support survivors. Financial aid, legal assistance, and vocational training should be expanded to ensure victims can achieve independence without being compelled into forced settlements. The One Stop Centre scheme, which provides integrated support services, should be enhanced for broader reach and effectiveness. Furthermore, judicial training programs must incorporate gender-sensitive perspectives to ensure court rulings align with constitutional protections rather than reinforce societal biases.
Expedited trials are crucial to preventing prolonged legal battles that pressure victims into out-of-court settlements. Despite the establishment of fast-track courts under the 2019 Nirbhaya Fund, many remain underutilized due to resource constraints. Strengthening these mechanisms is essential to upholding justice and preventing the reinforcement of patriarchal norms.
A balanced legal approach is necessary to distinguish between complex personal relationships and cases of deliberate deception. India’s commitment to gender justice demands that courts prioritize women’s rights over societal pressures, ensuring that legal interpretations do not compromise constitutional principles.
— Priyanka Saurabh
Research Scholar in Political Science, Poet, Freelance Journalist & Columnist
Ubba Bhawan, Aryanagar, Hisar (Haryana) – 127045
