The Kerala High Court has held that only sexual intercourse "welcomed" by the woman can be accepted as consensual.

"In social reality, sex that is actually desired by a woman is never termed consensual, for when a sexual interaction is equal, consent is not needed and when it is unequal, the consent cannot make it equal," Justice PB Suresh Kumar said while the high court was hearing an appeal filed by a 59-year-old man who was accused of raping a 14-year-old neighbour girl several times at his house and impregnating her.

"It is settled law that mere act of helpless resignation cannot be deemed to be consent for rape, the court said citing 1958 and 2003 decisions of the Supreme Court (in Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh Vs. State and Uday Vs State of Karnataka)," Justice Kumar said.

The incidents took place in 2009 and the POCSO Act had not come into being. The high court upheld his conviction and dismissed the appeal.

At the high court, the accused had contended that the relationship was consensual as the girl had come to his house several times after the first encounter and had sex with him.

The girl had deposed that she did so out of fear that her mother and sister would be harmed.

The Kerala High Court has held that only sexual intercourse "welcomed" by the woman can be accepted as consensual. "In social reality, sex that is actually desired by a woman is never termed consensual, for when a sexual interaction is equal, consent is not needed and when it is unequal, the consent cannot make it equal," Justice PB Suresh Kumar said while the high court was hearing an appeal filed by a 59-year-old man who was accused of raping a 14-year-old neighbour girl several times at his house and impregnating her.

The Kerala High Court has held that only sexual intercourse "welcomed" by the woman can be accepted as consensual. "In social reality, sex that is actually desired by a woman is never termed consensual, for when a sexual interaction is equal, consent is not needed and when it is unequal, the consent cannot make it equal," Justice PB Suresh Kumar said while the high court was hearing an appeal filed by a 59-year-old man who was accused of raping a 14-year-old neighbour girl several times at his house and impregnating her. "It is settled law that mere act of helpless resignation cannot be deemed to be consent for rape, the court said citing 1958 and 2003 decisions of the Supreme Court (in Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh Vs. State and Uday Vs State of Karnataka)," Justice Kumar said. The incidents took place in 2009 and the POCSO Act had not come into being. The high court upheld his conviction and dismissed the appeal. At the high court, the accused had contended that the relationship was consensual as the girl had come to his house several times after the first encounter and had sex with him. The girl had deposed that she did so out of fear that her mother and sister would be harmed.

Only sexual intercourse 'welcomed' by woman can be accepted as consensual: Kerala high court

Centre must explain its stand on consensual sexual relations between same-sex adults, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, setting a July deadline for a response.

The court had heard petitions demanding the abolition of Section 377 – a colonial-era law that prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” – widely interpreted to refer to homosexual sex.

The court’s notice to the government “is a watershed in the whole fight against Section 377,” said petitioner Ashok Row Kavi, chairperson of Humsafar Trust, a charity that works with India’s LGBT community.

“The government will have to decide whether this colonial law should still stand relevant in a country that has its own constitution that protects fundamental rights of its citizens,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The Supreme Court had in a surprise ruling in 2013 reinstated a ban on gay sex after a four-year period of decriminalisation, but it announced in January this year that it would reconsider the 2013 decision.

Those who submitted petitions to the court in the past couple months said they were living in constant fear of police due to their sexual orientations, and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Among the petitions, the judges considered on Tuesday was that of Arif Jafar, who was arrested under Section 377 in 2001 and was released after 49 days. His case is still pending.

Although the law banning homosexuality is rarely enforced in India, it is used to intimidate, harass, blackmail and extort money from gay people, activists say.

All forms of non-penile vaginal sex are also criminalised under Section 377. Gay sex is punishable by up to 10 years jail under the law.

There is no official data on the LGBT population in India, but the government estimates there are 2.5 million gay people, reflecting those who have declared their sexuality to the health ministry.

Campaigners say real numbers are far higher, as many conceal their identities fearing discrimination in a country where most marriages still take place within the boundaries of caste and religion.

The Supreme Court had in a surprise ruling in 2013 reinstated a ban on gay sex after a four-year period of decriminalisation, but it announced in January this year that it would reconsider the 2013 decision.

Centre must explain its stand on consensual sexual relations between same-sex adults, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, setting a July deadline for a response. The court had heard petitions demanding the abolition of Section 377 – a colonial-era law that prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” – widely interpreted to refer to homosexual sex. The court’s notice to the government “is a watershed in the whole fight against Section 377,” said petitioner Ashok Row Kavi, chairperson of Humsafar Trust, a charity that works with India’s LGBT community. “The government will have to decide whether this colonial law should still stand relevant in a country that has its own constitution that protects fundamental rights of its citizens,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. The Supreme Court had in a surprise ruling in 2013 reinstated a ban on gay sex after a four-year period of decriminalisation, but it announced in January this year that it would reconsider the 2013 decision. Those who submitted petitions to the court in the past couple months said they were living in constant fear of police due to their sexual orientations, and argued that the ban was unconstitutional. Among the petitions, the judges considered on Tuesday was that of Arif Jafar, who was arrested under Section 377 in 2001 and was released after 49 days. His case is still pending. Although the law banning homosexuality is rarely enforced in India, it is used to intimidate, harass, blackmail and extort money from gay people, activists say. All forms of non-penile vaginal sex are also criminalised under Section 377. Gay sex is punishable by up to 10 years jail under the law. There is no official data on the LGBT population in India, but the government estimates there are 2.5 million gay people, reflecting those who have declared their sexuality to the health ministry. Campaigners say real numbers are far higher, as many conceal their identities fearing discrimination in a country where most marriages still take place within the boundaries of caste and religion.

Explain stand on gay sex: Supreme Court issues notice to Central government

consensual

Consensual, News on Consensual, stories on Consensual, articles on Consensual, Consensual stories at Wion, Consensual news, Consensual latest news