The High Court has issued a rule asking why a provision that penalises only men for sexual relations induced by a promise of marriage should not be declared invalid.
The court also asked why treating consensual relationships between adults as a criminal offence on the basis of an alleged false promise of marriage should not be declared unlawful.
The questions concern a provision inserted through the Women and Children Repression Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2026.
A High Court bench led by Justice Habibul Gani issued the rule on August 4.
Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan represented the petitioner at the hearing.
Under the challenged section, a person may be punished where, without physical force, they induce a woman aged over 16 into sexual intercourse through a promise of marriage while in a relationship of trust.
The prescribed punishment is up to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and an additional fine.
The petition argues that the provision is vague and discriminatory and conflicts with constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.
Hasan said the petition challenges the constitutional validity of criminalising consensual adult private relationships on the basis of a claimed false promise of marriage.
The court issued a supplementary rule that more explicitly asks the relevant authorities to explain why the amended law should not be declared unconstitutional, ineffective and void.