07 May 2025 Legal Updates

LONG COHABITATION IMPLIES COUPLE'S CONSENT TO CONTINUE LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT MARRIAGE: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Decision Date:

• April 28, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra

Facts

The appellant (Ravish Singh Rana) and the respondent ‘X’ met through Facebook in February 2021 and began a live-in relationship. They lived together in a rented room in Khatima for over two years. The parties had executed a settlement agreement on November 19, 2023, expressing their love for each other and intent to marry. ‘X’ filed an FIR on November 23, 2023, alleging That the appellant established physical relationship multiple times with a promise to marry and when she insisted on marriage, he refused and threatened her. The FIR was registered under Sections 376 (rape), 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.

The appellant filed an application to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, which was dismissed by the High Court of Uttarakhand

Legal Issues

• Whether consent for physical relationship obtained under false promise of marriage constitutes rape?
• Whether a long-term consensual live-in relationship can be retrospectively characterized as non-consensual if marriage doesn't materialize?

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on:

• Extended consensual relationship: The parties lived together for over two years without complaint, creating a presumption of valid consent
• No evidence of mala fide intention: The Court held that mere breach of promise to marry doesn't constitute rape; there must be evidence that the promise was false from the beginning
• Settlement Agreement: The existence of a settlement expressing mutual love negated claims of forcible relations the day before
• Modern interpretation of live-in relationships: The Court acknowledged changing social dynamics, noting that financially independent women can make conscious decisions about relationships on their own terms

Key Legal Principles

• A mere breach of promise to marry cannot be equated with a "false promise" that vitiates consent
• To establish a false promise, it must be proven that the maker had no intention of upholding the promise at the time it was made
• In long-term live-in relationships, consent is presumed regardless of eventual marriage

DISPUTE OVER FULL & FINAL SETTLEMENT IS ARBITRABLE DESPITE PARTIES DISCHARGING CONTRACT: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Arabian Exports Private Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 6, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts

Arabian Exports (appellant) had two insurance policies with National Insurance Company (respondent) for its meat processing plant in Taloja, Maharashtra. The plant suffered significant damage due to unprecedented rainfall and flooding on July 26, 2005. The appellant claimed damages of ₹5.71 crores, but after lengthy delays, was offered only ₹1.88 crores in December 2008.

Under financial strain and pressure from bankers and creditors, the appellant signed a "full and final discharge voucher". Shortly after receiving payment, the appellant sought to invoke the arbitration clause for the remaining amount (₹3.83 crores).
The Bombay High Court rejected the appellant's application for appointment of an arbitrator, holding that signing the discharge voucher constituted "accord and satisfaction"

Legal Issues

• Whether a dispute can be referred to arbitration after a "full and final discharge voucher" has been signed?
• The scope of judicial intervention at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Court's Reasoning

1.    The Court distinguished between two categories of settlements:

• Bilateral negotiated settlements 
• "No dues/claims certificates" or discharge vouchers taken as a condition for releasing admitted dues

2.    The Court emphasized the "Kompetenz-Kompetenz" doctrine, which holds that arbitral tribunals are competent to rule on their own jurisdiction, including on the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement
3.    At the Section 11 stage, courts need only determine whether an arbitration agreement exists - "nothing more, nothing less"
4.    Claims of economic duress in signing discharge vouchers should be evaluated by the arbitral tribunal, not by courts at the appointment stage

Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and appointed Justice (Retd.) Suresh Chandrakant Gupte as the sole arbitrator, directing parties to report to him by May 15, 2025.

MERE PERFORMANCE OF ANOTHER RELIGIOUS RITUAL DOESN'T MEAN GIVING UP OF ONE'S OWN RELIGION: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• A. Raja v. D. Kumar  

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India  

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 06, 2025  

(d) Bench:

• Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih  

Facts:  

The appeal arose from a High Court judgment declaring the election of A. Raja (Appellant) to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from a Scheduled Caste-reserved constituency as void. The Respondent (D. Kumar) challenged Raja’s eligibility, alleging that he was a Christian (not a Hindu) and his ancestors migrated from Tamil Nadu post-1950, disqualifying him from contesting as a Scheduled Caste candidate in Kerala.  

Issues:  

• Whether the Appellant belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste in Kerala.  
• Whether the Caste Certificate issued to him was valid.  
• Whether an Election Petition can challenge a Caste Certificate.  

Supreme Court’s Decision:

1. Burden of Proof:

• The Court held that the burden to disprove the Caste Certificate lies on the Election Petitioner (Respondent), who failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Raja was not a Hindu or that his ancestors migrated post-1950.  

2. Validity of Caste Certificate:

• The Court emphasized that a Caste Certificate issued by a Competent Authority under the Kerala Act is presumed valid unless challenged through the statutory mechanism (Scrutiny Committee) and not via an Election Petition.  

3. Doctrine of Eclipse:

• The Court rejected the argument that Raja’s alleged conversion to Christianity (if any) permanently disqualified him, noting no conclusive evidence of his abandonment of Hinduism.  

Final Ruling:  

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and upheld Raja’s election. It clarified that Caste Certificates can only be challenged under the relevant State Act (e.g., Kerala Act) or Madhuri Patil guidelines, not in Election Petitions.  

Key Takeaways 

• Election Petitions require proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (akin to criminal trials).  
• Caste Certificates enjoy a presumption of validity unless invalidated by statutory authorities.