Pyaar, Promise, Dhoka: Feminist Questions to Law – Commentary on Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46

Abstract

This commentary is on one ‘promise to marry’ judgment and its feminist re-writing. Promise to marry cases involve a woman agreeing to sexual intercourse with a partner relying on his promise to marry her subsequently. In inter-caste relationships, the offer of promise to marriage as a basis for engaging in sexual intercourse raises complex issues. The impunity of the caste system means that if the promise is not followed through, the woman may not just feel betrayed, but also ‘dishonoured’, socially ostracized, and left with the option of approaching the court alleging rape on grounds of an absence of meaningful consent. The original judgment did not take into consideration this caste hierarchy and rejected the allegation of rape, suggesting that an ‘intelligent, consenting’ woman needed to be aware of the ‘impossibility’ of such marriages. The judgment thereby upheld endogamous caste practices. The feminist rewriting is critical of this perspective and also highlights the absence of any form of compensation to a woman who has been violated of her dignity and social status. Feminist questions on this issue require nuance, taking into consideration the caste-religion-gender intersectionality and at the same time not measuring all acts of betrayal through the vantage point of rape. This commentary proposes certain feminist questions to the law beyond the text and interpretation of existing legal provisions.