High Court Questions Legality of Sex-Under-Promise-of-Marriage Law
Photo Collected
The High Court has issued a rule questioning the legality of a controversial provision in the Women and Children Repression Prevention (Amendment) Act, which criminalizes sexual relations established under the pretext of marriage. A division bench comprising Justice Md. Habibul Gani and Justice Syed Mohammad Dastagir Husain issued the directive on Tuesday following a supplementary petition filed by the rights organization Aid for Men Foundation.
The disputed provision, section 9(b), was introduced through an amendment to the existing law during the tenure of the previous interim government. Under this section, any person who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman over the age of 16 without physical force—relying instead on a promise of marriage within a relationship of trust—faces up to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, in addition to fines.
Legal counsel Ishrat Hasan, representing the petitioners, argued that the provision is inherently discriminatory and constitutionally unsound. Speaking on the legal challenge, Hasan stated that the law fails to define the threshold for what constitutes a “promise of marriage” and neglects the reality that such commitments are private matters between two consenting adults. According to the petition, the law creates an unfair legal imbalance by targeting only men, while failing to account for circumstances where either party may choose to renege on a personal commitment.
The petition further asserts that the law is dangerously vague, as it does not distinguish between the marital status of the individuals involved, potentially allowing for the exploitation of the legal process. Critics of the provision argue that transforming a broken personal promise into a criminal offense based on gender-specific culpability violates fundamental rights and established principles of due process.
The High Court has ordered the secretaries of the Law Ministry and the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs to provide an explanation as to why section 9(b) should not be declared unconstitutional. Deputy Attorney General Muhammad Zeeshan Haider represented the state during the proceedings. This latest judicial intervention follows an initial writ petition filed by the same organization in April of last year, which sought to challenge the amendment’s validity on the grounds that it creates a premise for criminal liability that is both speculative and overly broad.
0%
0%
0%
0%
