Premarital Sex Is Okay Says Supreme Court.A Fatal and Tragic Observation !!
I don't know how such diabolical observations on part of Supreme Court of India will lead to better days in our nation.It's only going to create a mayhem of sorts in Indian society that rests on rule of law mired in ancient beliefs. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices K.G. Balakrishnan, Deepak Varma, and B.S. Chauhan, in a petition filed by Khusboo to quash criminal proceedings against her made an observation that premarital sex is no offense as living together is no offense.
The bench asked several questions while reserving the judgement in special leave petition filed by Khushboo.
When two adult
people want to live together what is the offense? Does it amount
to an offense? Living together is not an offense. It cannot be an
# "Even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology."
# "There is no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex."
# "What is the offense and under which section? Living together is a right to life."
# "How does it concern you? We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offense? Under which provision of the law?"
Well, I honour the words of Supreme Court.However,I have a right to critically analyze its decisions and observations. That' should not be seen as attack on the dignity of constitutional bodies.Against this backdrop ,I strongly criticize the observations of Supreme Court.We see this premier institution body as a last hope to resurrect cherished ideals of past.However,such atrocious observations on part of it will only add to woes of Indian society reeling under so many complex problems.
However, such observations on part of Supreme court well might prove to be a last nail in the coffin and that will eventually make erosion of values bit faster.Well, now let me deal with the observations.Well, the supporter of these flawed observations will go gaga over such realistic assertions of the Supreme Court.They will be pointing out facts and figures to suggest that having premarital sex is a commonplace affair. Look at the findings of survey conducted among 3300 people by National Institute of Health and Family Welfare and suppressed by India's health ministry.It says that "a quarter to a third of India's young people indulge in premarital sex".Though the findings of the survey conducted among school and college students, young working men and women, and young people aged 15-24 years living in slums in Delhi and Lucknow are of dubious nature ,the supporters of these observations will use to justify the words of Supreme Court.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court feels that in age of Internet the "personal opinion" of Khushboo is of no significance
"The scenario is highly unlikely in this age of the Internet where we do not know what our children are doing or where they are going or what pornography site they are watching.
I don't think that what two people do it's okay if it's not an offense .By the same logic , I may ask the lawmakers what was the need to make adultery an crime.It's too a very commonplace affair in our society.The people involved in it have more valid grounds to justify their extramarital relationship than people involved in premarital sex.They too are adults.What's does Supreme Court plan next ? Quote scriptures ,quote findings of new surveys and make a new observation that present law which makes adultery an offense null and void :-))
All laws have in their base some moral concept.To say that something is immoral and yet not a offense is only making such immoral thing to spread it's tentacles and get converted into a crime. One of the most sad developments of our times is that though we are taking note of corrupt happenings of present times ,we are more eager to make them part and parcel of life by quoting scriptures in mindless manner instead of taking ways to stop them taking a wicked shape.The urgency to validate them is more instead of marginalizing such abnormal affairs. So if you cannot corruption then legalize it.If you cannot stop prostitution then legalize it.If you cannot stop abnormal human behaviour then legalize it. I don't know what has happened to our ability to view an issue in proper perspective and suggest ways to minimize and reduce the chance of phenomenon turning into a cancer for the whole society.
Strangely enough, the SC Court put the counsel for Khushboo on back foot."
How does it concern you? We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offense? Under which provision of the law?" the bench asked the counsel.
It's also interested in knowing how many girls eloped from their homes after the said interview.
How many homes have been affected can you tell us," the bench asked while inquiring whether the complainants had daughters. When the response was in the negative, they shot back, "Then, how are you adversely affected?
agree with the counsels appearing the complainants that the comments made by Khushboo are of "offensive nature" and a source of " public nuisance ".The counsels for the complainants are also correct that there " should be some morality in the comments made by people of prominence like Khushboo".That's true because she is a popular personality and not only that she is also worshiped as Goddess among her fans.
However, even this observation on part of lawyers protesting the statements made them at the wrong end of SC."
And this is how you revere your goddess, by dragging her to court?
" retorted Justice Verma.
I mean the attitude of SC on the whole issue is one that smacks of being prejudiced and preset mindset.It seems to be honouring liberalism but in the whole process opening can of worms.I mean let me contrast it with other parallels in this regard to prove that though it's not an offense and only a personal opinion but even then it's a huge blunder on part of SC to give place a seal of approval on it. Even if its not proved that how many have actually used the Khushboo's statement to enter in premarital sex or not ,it in no way reduces the repercussions inherent in such statement.Ironically, those who may not have used Khushboo's statement to enter in premarital sex will now use the SC's approval to do so!! So now we should be collecting the data to show in future how many of them used the observation on part of SC to enter in premarital sex !!!!
Well, let me unfold some of the bitter contradictions in approach of SC in this regard. Well, like to know from the judges involved in the observations do public figure have no moral responsibility towards the society ? How can the bench ignore the fact that any gesture on part of such popular figures is emulated subconsciously by the whole mass ? The public figures just cannot ignore this moral responsibility of theirs. Secondly, we have provision in the law that prevents one from giving "inflammatory speeches".Why ? Because such speeches hurt the sentiments of majority or these speeches have the power to invoke wrong set of actions. How can then court be ignorant of the fact that such "personal opinion" too prepare the way for wrong set of actions. They create an environment conductive for all sort of perverse actions, albeit in slow and steady manner.So why not punish these peoples who are conductive to wrong sort of beliefs,not on par with cherished ancient beliefs of the nation. Has the highest court forgotten the fact that Indian society lays so much stress on "virginity" or for that matter purity in relationships. So anything that tries to derail the ancient order of things may be immediately blocked instead of framing logic to make it part of living patterns. My point in saying all these is that why allow such distorted immoral behaviour that sooner or later manifests into crimes of many sorts or for that matter manifest into so many distorted patterns of life.Remember we live in a society wherein virginity of girl is still a prize possession.My best freind says that " Aurato ki izzzat kaanch ki tarah hoti hai " ( the honour of a woman is like piece of glass)
Like to make it very clear that we are not that evolved as a society that have place for people who can enter into all sorts of sexual relationship prior to marriage.I hope we do not get evolved to that extent.Well, the moot question is then what's the need of getting married at all ? What will the fate of girl who enters in premarital sex and later the partner moves away with another partner ? What will be the fate of such boys and girls who are born out of the wedlock ? May be rich guys and girls may not have so much problem with having all sorts of relationship as there they have money and so called glorious "liberalism" to move ahead with life but what will happen to those middle class girls who somehow develop the courage to embrace such a relationship and later their partner gets married with someone else ? What will be the options available for the court if such a girl seek relief from court ? Will then the court treat whole thing as offense and provide the girl some relief or will tell the girl we cannot do anything because it's your personal problem arising out of a personal choice ? I am sure such relationships will also lead to abortions ? Now will the Court be party to humiliation faced by such girls and bear the pain and financial expenses faced by that girl ? Who will ensure that everything is okay in such relationships ? If anything goes wrong is such relationships than what will be the options available for the court to offer as remedy for parties involved in such act ? What role will court play in such personal affair guided by personal choices ? Will it then dismiss the petition and say we have no role to play in such personal affairs ?Well,it's one of the most tragic observation on the part of Apex court as the observations defy both common sense and logic.It's really unbelievable that Supreme Court can take the issue of premarital sex in such a lighter vein by distinguishing between "offense" and "immoral affair ".Certainly a bad precedent on part of SC which I have seen so may times going out of the way with so many unheard interpretations to hold the dignity of cherished institution. How can it be so vague this time ?
Well, the Supreme Court might be under this impression that it has only taken note of current trend pattern in our society wherein taboos of all sorts have been shattered,wherein new age people under influence of so many new forms of communication have become introduced to all sorts of complex and distorted thought patterns and above all it feels that since the whole issue is merely a personal opinion /choice there is no harm in declaring the pre marital sex is okay in our society.The Supreme Court decided to play safe under the guise that whole thing does not fall within the ambit of " offense" .However, I wish to know from the Supreme Court that should all immoral activities that are not offense should be promoted and encouraged.
May be what Khusboo said be not followed by all but the support of a Constitutional body like Supreme Court will certainly compel many reluctant souls to enter in premarital sex.Isn't that going to create a mayhem of sorts in near future ? On such complex issues I feel the stand of Supreme Court should not be guided by orthodox interpretation of laws.It should have a take on the issues in a more conscious way,taking into account the wider implications of following a particular clause of law in a traditional manner.
In fact , I am of the opinion that views of celebrities holds lots of importance.People are do influenced to a great extent when they express anything.That's why MNCs pay them huge money to campaign for their products.How can you treat their opinion as personal opinion when what they are saying is addressed to a larger section of people ? I have no problem with the fact whether one enters in premarital sex or extramarital sex.Okay.If one is interested in having such immoral relations then he/she can do so.However,I don't think it's right gesture on their part to use public forums to endorse such gestures.It's one thing to like or dislike such immoral gestures but it's quite another to openly confess about them in public ? What's the urge to express their likings in form of advice to a larger section of people ? One can also ask SC what's the urge on it's part to promote live-in-relationships or premarital sex by taking a liberal stand on it by suggesting that it's immoral and not illegal? It should have asked Khushboo what was the need on her part talk about premarital sex via interviews and etc.Why not she keeps her fascination for all immoral activities confined to her private world ?
I am also offended the way Supreme Court has roped in the relationship of Radha Krishna to justify such immoral relationships. Is that the way to quote episode from scriptures ? What is SC trying to suggest ? That two great lovers are involved in immoral affairs !! How many times have be ever bothered to follow good examples from Hindu scriptures other than quoting in mindless manner the episodes from sacred books of Hindus.Hindus treat whole world as manifestation of universal consciousness.That makes it a most secular religion in the whole world.Will SC then ask the government to make Hinduism the official religion of India by quashing the clause that makes India a secular country. What's really shocking is that there are many provisions in Hindu scriptures that do not support premarital sex or live in relationships.Then what was the need to quote episode involving Radha and Krishna.I know one religion whose founder was allegedly the owner of child wife.So will the SC ask the followers to own the child wife.Will it make pedophilia a no offense for followers of that community. When we do not have the guts to uphold the right values inherent in our Hindu religion then what right do we have to quote lesser heard phenomenons and bring them in application as it is ?