HC questions validity of penalising men for marriage promise to solicit sexual relationship

The Court has issued the rule after a preliminary hearing of a petition that challenged the validity of the provision

The High Court has asked why a law that penalises only men for engaging in sexual relations under the promise of marriage, should not be declared unconstitutional.

The bench of Justice Md Habibul Gani and Justice Syed Mohammed Tazrul Hossain issued the rule on Sunday after a preliminary hearing on a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 9(2) of the Prevention of Women and Children Repression (Amendment) Ordinance.

The secretaries of the Law and Justice Division, the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division, and the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs have been asked to respond within four weeks.

The writ petition was filed on Apr 7 by lawyer Rashidul Hasan and the human rights organisation Aid for Men Foundation. It argues that the amended Section 9(2) contradicts Articles 27, 28, 31, and 32 of the Constitution.

Arguing in favour of the petition, Ishrat Hasan, said: “If an adult man and woman engage in a consensual sexual relationship out of wedlock, it is unreasonable to punish only the man.”

“According to Islamic law, both men and women must be punished in cases of such physical relationships. Therefore, making only one party liable for punishment conflicts with the Constitution, which upholds the principle of equality.”

She added, “It is not a crime if a man and woman engage in sexual relations based on a promise. It only constitutes a crime when the promise of marriage isn’t fulfilled after the sexual relationship has taken place. Is the law indirectly promoting adultery? That is why we have sought the revocation of this specific section through the writ (petition).”