Supreme Court Rebukes Lawyer Over 'Consensual Relationship' Claims

A Supreme Court bench reprimanded a lawyer for repeatedly referring to a 'consensual relationship' in a bail plea for a client accused of raping a minor. The bench emphasized the irrelevance of consent in cases involving minors, questioning the lawyer's understanding of the law.

The Supreme Court came down hard on a lawyer on Thursday for persistently using the term 'consensual relationship' in a bail plea concerning his client accused of the rape of a minor. Justice Surya Kant expressed dismay, noting the term was repeated at least 20 times in the special leave petition.

Justice Kant, alongside Justice N Kotiswar Singh, confronted the lawyer about the legal misstep, emphasizing that consent is irrelevant when the survivor is a minor. The bench questioned the lawyer's competence in law, asking, 'Are you an AoR?'

The court criticizes the qualifications of some lawyers in the AoR examinations after repeatedly encountering such legal misunderstandings. The bench expressed disbelief over the use of 'consensual relationship' concerning minors, pointing out the gravity of such implications.

(With inputs from agencies.)