“We have grave doubts about the expediency of transplanting Western experience in our country. Social conditions are different and so also the general intellectual level.”
– Sikri CJI, Palekar, Dua, Beg and Ray JJ, Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20.
This spelled disaster in Koushal, (2014) 1 SCC 1. The Grave Doubts of our Lords shall return to haunt the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
5 Judges won’t do.
It was already accepted in 1967 that sexual intercourse is not merely for the purpose of conception. A Guj HC Judge however said, “without any hesitation… that the orifice of the mouth is not, according to nature, meant for sexual or carnal intercourse” (See, AIR 1968 Guj 252).
Ironically, both Hon’ble Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya have had stints at the Guj HC.
The Bench in Koushal was “apprehensive” of how the Court would rule in a case of proved consensual intercourse between adults – and ultimately looked to the Parliament for guidance. The Parliament, of course, had not thought it proper to delete the provision.
Can not a woman, A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, give herself up to a Police Station stating that her eagerness for obedience of the law was eclipsed once or twice upon a time by her desire for sexual intercourse of an unfriendly nature?
That would work better than the Present Curatives, Real Sedatives. Forget, The Presidential Reference.
A CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.