SC rules out Live-in relationships and Pre-marital sex a no offence

Again, SC or any court only will give a ruling based on the existing laws of land.  Like Mr. Naushad says, we are talking about people living together, without marraige and not loving in public like Cats & Dogs.

Shall we stop inspecting marriage certificates of evey couple, around, like “Talibans” do?

Mr. Vikram... what are U saying " PEOPLE WILL DO IT IN THE OPEN LIKE CATS N DOGS "

Here we are talking about Living Together & not Loving together ( Sex ). Here we are not talking about CATS & DOGS... the argument is about 2 matured people living together in a home, the ONLY DIFFERENCE is - According to some hyppocrits, they do not have a Marraige Certificate. WHY SHLD IT BOTHER OTHERS ?

Do we, these days even know, who lives in our immediate neighbourhood ? Forget about knowing about their Marraige License.

Again i repeat... LIVE & LET LIVE !

Marraige is a VERY SACRED INSTITUTION... it should not be adopted in Haste... Thats why we have so many DIVORCES... IS NOT BAD? or IS THAT O.K. ?  Those people who are not very sure of How life will be together... Try the LIVING TOGETHER METHOD... Take it just as another Method & Chill ! 

I appreciate your(Prabhakar's) opinion & explanation.It clears certain murky ideas people have in mind on SC issues.

I repeat what I have posted some Four days ago:

With this ruling the Supreme Court has not brought in any new law into force, which is outside its jurisdiction.

It only clarified the legal status of Pre-Marital Sex and Live-in Relationships, under the current laws of land.

Which means, though these practices have been looked down upon by 'The Society', "The State" has never thought it fit to bring in any law banning either Pre-Marital Sex or Live-in Relationships.

To the above, I further add that if it is the collective will of the people of India, a law prohibiting Pre-Marital Sex and Live-in Relationships will come into forces, if it is the need of the hour.  Just like Education to All has been realised as the need of the hour, hence a constitutional amendment.

Every individual born in India has certain rights & freedom. It is enshrined in the constitution & SC only vouches the same.No coloration of fact or understanding please.

Let us talk about SC rulings. Debate is on SC rulings I hope. Are we not moving away from the subject ? Say, anything pertinent to constitution /legal requirement. If, Culture is to be discussed then, we can have, " western culture Vs Indian culture" as topic.

Some 400 years ago, when we started waring Western Cloths (shedding our traditional attire), in the name of modernity, and started learning Western Eduction as modern one (discarding our own traditional learning philosophy), we have already started losing many of our own Values in favour of those from the West.

Why crib now and try to go back into the history?

And what cannot stand the test of law cannot be enforced, never mind who thinks what to be right or wrong.

WERE ADAM & EVE MARRIED ??? I HAVE NEVER SEEN THEIR CERTIFICATE !

Dear Mr. Natteraja... I am glad to know that you live in a totally different world, which is of your own make belief... Step out SIR & observe the reality.

MARRAIGE is a Human discovery... its like marking out a territory by a Lion, that this is mine, dont intrude.

Tell me... HOW CAN A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 2 MATURED PEOPLE affect others around them ?

The World has moved ahead & will move more ahead... catch up guys, or be left behind. IMMORALITY is CHEATING, while in a Relationship ( with or without a Marraige Certificate )... MORALITY is faithfulness inspite of a Certificate.

Here what we are Debating is about a decision taken by 2 Matured Persons MUTUALLY... HOW CAN IT AFFECT OTHERS ? WHY SHOULD IT AFFECT OTHERS ?

Maybe what your are talking about Mr. Natteraja, is prevalent in Villages & small Towns, where... WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS DOESNT EVEN REGISTER !

By the way Mr. Natteraja, this is not my PERSONAL OPINION, since Im Married.

Happy Debating Friends !

Mr. Vikram,

You are entitled to your opinion.

Morals are not constant.

Morals that were cherished in the previous ages are no more morals Today.

Like Morals of Previous ages are Today’s Taboos, Morals of Today could become Taboos of Tomorrow.

They change from generation to generation and due the generational gap, we crib & criticise and even to try to stop the socalled moral-degeneration –deploying all powers in our hands - as we percieve the changed attitude of Today’s generation.  However, hard we may try, we simply can’t stop the ‘change’.  In fact the only thing that is always contstant is “change”.

Isn’t it better to resign to change that is so perennial?

This has been a good debate.  Many points have been made.  Most people have learnt at least a little through this debate.  I am afraid, any more continuation of the debate will lead to either repetition or personal ego clashes.  

I strongly propose that in addition to the "Yes" "No" buttons, we must provide a "End topic" button.  We could have a ceiling limit of say 25 responses collectively.  After this, whenever the "End topic" clicks exceed the combined number of responses of both Yes&No, the topic should cease to be available for further response.

I get alerts on email whenever a response on a participated debate is received.  I find it convenient.  But looking at 7to8 responses every day on the same topic becomes ridiculous.  You will need to read your mail but we need something new to chew on.  

All of you, please consider this proposal seriously.  It is very simple to organise.  The End topic button is inactive till say 15 responses are received combined on either Yes or No.  Then the topic gets activated.  Every time a user wants to click on the end topic button, the count gets added.  When it exceeds the combined count of Yes/No, the page is alive but responses can not be given.

Its a pity that our supreme court has to meddle in such petty arguments with all imporatant issues lying to clear up. As for this debate is concerned it will never end bcoz with every moral standard in a typical indian society there will always be muddled dirty minds who are keen to prick anything & everything and showcase it into a highly propotionate issue. But they fail to understand that people who want to do something that their minds approve will go ahead and if the act does not involve anyone getting hurt there is nothing they could do to stop it. Period.

Yep,

What transpires between Two consenting adults should not be any body's business.

LETS MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS !

MORALS ?... What Morals are we talking about ? That word got lost somewhere years ago Dear Friends. Its time to leave 2 Individuals to do what they think is best & WHAT DO YOU THINK  MARRAIGE IS ? Some kind of License to act Immorally ?

Thats what comes out when U closely observe Married Men & Women - INDEPENDENTLY. According to this argument, Getting Married is Okay, even if U act immorally afterwards.

Relationship is a Promise between 2 INDIVIDUALS, who can remain faithful to eachother even without a MARRAIGE CERTIFICATE... and on the other hand can have Extra Marital Affairs with a Marraige Certificate.

I am simply asking... In Today's Time & Era, Who are WE, to Question about Moral Activity of others ? Lets just Mind our own Business & LIVE N LET LIVE !

The SC Decision is perfect & in SYNC with Today's Time...

Happy Debating Friends !     

There is no city in India today where a lot of people are not having pre-marital sex and all the metros including the budding big cities have growing Live-in relationships. If we think about your comment, then are we already "Decayed" and "Immoral"? If the Supreme Court or the Government has faith in the Mature minds of India then why is there a problem? Having sex (pre-marital or marital) is just an expression of a Human or Living Being behaviour. It has nothing to do with morality. It is only the cheap acts like Eve-Teasing, Rape, Molestation, etc. that is IMMORAL. If 2 mature minds want to live together then let them be. We call ourselves the biggest Democracy, but where is the Liberty in this Democracy? Oh I forgot..."It is with the Americans (who are immoral??)" :-).

If we oppose it, then I am sure there will be more than 10 million Criminal cases in this country for this and everyone will be behind bars. That sounds better.....then everyone will get free food and we will not have to pay the increased taxes. :-)

And just to add, as I said earlier....it is a Social and Parental responsibility to induce good values in their children and the new generation. Keep the court out of it....there are already too many important cases pending with them that have got a common man involved with him being really screwed.

Dear Mr Arikrishanan,

Your arguments connecting with texts is no valid as the connectivity is missed. You are citing just one segment if you would like take  wholistic view as also contexts of the times and one may find the relevance and reason. If a social norm was established or changed it is to do with requirements of times.

In the present case such experiments have failed in wildest west where family and lineage is unknown and many a times the biological father needs to be established. This is not the case in India where forefathers names are carried by kin.

Moreover SC intervening on a Moral or Ethical social issue complicates the situation for them as their may be several other issues where similar reason is not found valid.

It is absolutely disgusting to say that this ruling is like legalising prostitution. Are we all in the business of checking all the adults in the world -- who is carrying a marriage certificate? and verifying whether people claiming to be married are actually married? What proof is there that those adults claiming to be married are actually married? Does anyone here have the guts to go asking for the marriage certificates of their friends and family and neighbours? If not, then you can't bet who's married or not and then you cant be casting doubts around or creating conflict.

Also,If the family, neighbours and relatives say to a woman 'Marry X because he is from your caste/religion' even though she loves another and then push her to have children with X (meaning that she should have unprotected sex with him and have a proof that she's done the act) then isn't that prostitution?

Legal Experts, please take note: with this ruling the Supreme Court has not brought in any new law into force, which is outside its jurisdiction.

It only clarified the legal status of Pre-Marital Sex and Live-in Relationships, under the current laws of land.

Which means, though these practices have been looked down upon by 'The Society', "The State" has never thought it fit to bring in any law banning either Pre-Marital Sex or Live-in Relationships.

I hope Mr . Natterraja understands the interpretation by Mr. Pursotham, a legal student.However, I appreciate the cornor-stone of driving the values for moral values.

the supreme court has rightly distinguished between moral wrongs and criminal offence. Not every moral wrong is an offence under criminal jurisprudence. A Court's judgment is not the real sanction behind a moral wrong, in this case premarital sex, and hence will not hamper in any manner the present social order.

The question is co-existence allowed or not? The article say," yes" as per SC. Its not talking about open sexual act? harassment.? That is circumvented by social norms/ culture you have.

Dear Mr. Gaur, I was just curious to know that what kind of OBJECTION you are talking about. if the objections are regarding social misbehavior, sexual act in front of public or something like that, then they are still under regulation! so, what could be the possible reason of objection? and if talking about prostitutes, practically, does it makes any sense to you that if two MATURE people are living in a HOUSE, not HOTEL or 1 night stand places, then they would be doing so rather than the prost would be looking for more business with different clients? one more thing for your kind information, In India, if u go through any survey report, u will find the rate of premarital sex is shocking! in case of minors, it needs to b controlled but Matures are matured. 

As Vikram point out here. Living in Hotel is not a freedom. It is regulated by Hotel regulations / Municipal rights. What SC said is about the rights provided in articles.

Change all around. Why not in old values and moral standards. Most of these old methods/notions are created by society at different times.

Moral values keep shifting and changing every generation. Governments at the time of Independence were pursuing Prohibition. But today most Governments depend on income from liquor and in many states the liquor shops and bars are run by the Government. U turn in 50 years!

Breaking existing old moral standards is always the sign of rebellion to youth. It will go on. Changes will come to suit the society and its people.

I agree with Aarti Gupta, just by getting the statement in news wont change the society soon. Live Relation Ship goes mutually by two people.  Its not an offence.  Its is much better than legalising prostitution in India.

As I've already said, just because it has been legalised, not all will go and start living together. He who thinks about his culture won't go but legalising means even if someone is staying together, they are not committing any crime.

I don't think it will lead to decay in our morals and ethos, its just that the SC is saying if two people are mature enough to understand eachother then there should be no problem at all and there were many cases that were being registered in this regard where SC couldn't draw a line and terming it an offence would have made it all the more complications so, its the right decision taken...thanks for the referral makrand.

i agree

NO, I dont think it will.

That said, it should also point out that this is a matter of social mores. It is not a matter for ruling by a court of law. The courts are meant for legislating on existing laws as they verify either compliance or violation based on facts. This comes in the area of social and religious morals. The courts should not and do not have a role to play in this

Please correct the title - Supreme Court has ruled but not ruled out.  The leading argument is also on the wrong side.  The question was will this lead to decay of cultural values.  

Any way, Supreme Court has not laid down law.  It has adjudicated the question whether under Law of the land, two adult and consenting people have freedom to live together or have sex without the marital bond.  Its adjudication is that they have freedom to do so.  

Now for your question : My answer is that this ruling is not going to influence cultural decay.  

Live in relationships have come to stay in India.  If there is no legal sanctity, a lot of people would have been harassed by the police but they would have lived in anyway.  In fact, our Supreme Court has sought to protect a partner in such a relationship if such living in turns sour.

Existing laws are an instrument for harassment in the hands of police.  What if two adults share a hotel room and at the same time police raid the hotel? I have pondered over this issue some times, whenever I saw in a movie of such a possibility or read about a raid in news papers.  What protection does the couple have in such a situation, I have not been able to comprehend conclusively.

The more such decisions we come across, the better and more mature will be the society. 

Khushboo's case is different.  She deserves total protection from perverted individuals who only want to harass the actor.  

Firstly, people are simply not going to engage in Live-in relationships and pre-marital sex simply because its okay. People will engage in these based on their volition not because its legal. In any case, people were engaging in them before the Court made its decision.

Secondly, there is no connection between people engaging in Live-in relationships and pre-marital sex and moral decay, etc. Being religious/cultural/ethnic does not equal morality.

Our society is filled with religious/traditional/cultural/ethnic people who engage in corruption, engineer caste and religious riots, produce lots of children without bothering about population explosion or the finances of their family, marry a woman whom they barely know and towards whom they show no respect, blame a community for some invader's acts centuries ago, and discriminate on caste, religion, community, tribe, gender.

The Court judgement will prevent these moral police folks from harassing others and is a step in the right direction.

Courts were never designed as the right place to decide MORAL Issues for a society. 

I don’t know whether living of two opposite sex together before marriage is legal or not, however SC has made it so but that is sure that it is not illegal. If two mature and adult persons decide that they want to live together then it is their matter of concern rather than others who doesn’t have to do anything with their way of living. If I am not wrong SC has also protected the rights of women living-in by giving them the right to property if they are abandoned by their partners. This way SC is ensuring that no will misuse the legality of this kind of relationship.

Kiran,

I would like to point to Aarti's answer for your response. Just by saying that the Court has nothing to do what someone does in their bedroom as a mature person without getting married does not mean that they are saying "Oh it's a free for all....go get it". They are not legalising rape.

Culture is induced by the values parents give to their children. It's the society's responsibility to take care of the Culture and not Court's responsibility.

I agree with what you are saying but Court has just said that it is out of Legal jurisdiction. There is a law for Polygamy and post-marital Cheating which is forced so that people don't marry to Cheat as there are various other things attached to a marriage.

People were already doing it without fear and it will continue as is. Inducing the Culture for not getting into the act is on our shoulders as a Society.

Dear mr. Kumara Swamy,

It seems that you are on the wrong side of the discussion.

Though just to say something else.....CULTURE is NOT just about SEX (FULL STOP).

Grow up and try to differentiate between "a young boy touching his elders' feet"  (That is culture) and "him having sex with someone he likes" (that is expression of love or maybe just lust, but still an expression). He is not going out Eve-teasing or molesting someone like the goons who are fed by some political party to throw stones in favour of some IMMORAL activity against the culture and can mostly be found eyeing girls on the roads.

The supreme court decision is absolutely wrong. when the western countries are looking towards Indian customs and traditions, we are looking at western culture. The hon'ble supreme court is giving a chance to the people of India to behave like animals.  It is really a bad decision in the history of supreme court.