HC questions why only men face jail

The High Court (HC) on Tuesday questioned the constitutional validity of a legal provision that prescribes up to seven years’ imprisonment only for men accused of engaging in sexual relations on the basis of a false promise of marriage.

A bench led by Justice Habibul Gani issued a supplementary rule after hearing a writ petition challenging the provision introduced through the Women and Children Repression Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2026.

The court asked the authorities to explain why punishment under the provision applies only to men and why consensual sexual relationships between adults should be treated as criminal offences on the grounds of an alleged false promise of marriage.

It also sought an explanation as to why the provision should not be declared unconstitutional and struck down.

The High Court had earlier issued a rule following a preliminary hearing on the same petition. Tuesday’s supplementary rule specifically addressed the constitutional validity of the amended provision.

Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan, representing the petitioner, argued that the provision was vague, discriminatory and inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

She said the law criminalised consensual private relationships between adults based solely on allegations that a promise of marriage had been false.

According to the petition, the provision violates constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty by imposing criminal liability on men alone and treating consensual adult relationships as offences.
The respondents have been asked to submit their explanations to the court.