The Supreme Court on Thursday sternly reprimanded a lawyer for inappropriate use of the term “consensual relationship” in the bail application for his client, who is accused of raping a minor girl. Justice Surya Kant, visibly upset during the hearing, expressed his discomfort with the language used in the special leave petition (SLP), highlighting it as legally and ethically inappropriate.
“We got mentally sick after reading the petition. At least 20 times you have written ‘consensual relationship’,” Justice Kant remarked, questioning the lawyer’s understanding of the law given the victim’s age. The minor’s age, acknowledged by the lawyer in the petition itself, legally invalidates any claim of consent, as minors cannot consent to sexual activities under Indian law.
The bench, which also included Justice N Kotiswar Singh, pointedly asked the lawyer if he was an advocate-on-record (AoR), expressing concern over his qualifications. AoRs are lawyers who are authorized to file cases and pleadings directly in the Supreme Court, which also conducts examinations for this accreditation.
Justice Kant further criticized the lawyer’s repeated references to a “consensual relationship”, emphasizing the severity of misrepresenting the legal framework regarding sexual consent involving minors. “How are these people qualifying (for the AoR)? You don’t know the basic law… Tomorrow you will say there was a consensual relationship with an 8-month-old child,” he added, illustrating the absurdity of the claim.
Despite the severe reprimand, the bench proceeded to issue notices to the police and other relevant parties regarding the bail plea, adhering to judicial procedures. The lawyer offered an apology for his choice of words in the petition.
