Confusing consent:

Confusing consent:

Context

• In acquitting writer-film-maker Mahmood Farooqui of the charge of rape, the Delhi High Court concluded that it could not be established without reasonable doubt whether the incident took place.

What is the court’s reasoning to conclude at such decision?

• The court ruled that even if rape had taken place, it is doubtful that it was without the consent of the American researcher who pressed the charges.
• The court, by and large, accepted her version of events, described her as a stellar witness, and found that vital aspects of her testimony were verified.
• Considering that the victim’s unwillingness was only in her mind, the judge gave credibility to Farooqui’s defence that he was unaware of the lack of consent.

What does this mean?

• When the court raises a doubt as to when exactly the consent was withdrawn, it seems the victim is being faulted for the man failing to comprehend a ‘no’.
• Consent, a major ground for defence in rape cases, was allowed to be raised in the appeal although it was not made during the trial, which resulted in the conviction and imprisonment.
• Judicial decisions containing a mix of sound law and regressive personal opinion are not uncommon. This decision is an example of it.
• When superior court orders contain such remarks, there is an inherent danger that they could be seen as a legal basis for deciding cases of rape.