Love and Law
Throughout the history of mankind, love has played a major
role in a common person’s life. From procreation and sexuality to masturbation
and adultery to rape and sodomy, the philosophy of Sexuality has played both a
conceptual and a normative role in determining one of the most basic and common
desires that drive us to do what we do. These are all connected in different
ways to the expansive field of human sexuality. They therefore have a
connection to both human actions and wants that include the production of new
human beings as well as human behaviors and desires that involve the pursuit of
sexual pleasure or fulfillment. Because it is an inherent characteristic of
humans that particular actions and biological parts can be used for either
pleasure or reproduction, or for both.
Therefore it is an unarguable fact of life that the law which is made for the reasonable citizen be heavily influenced by the concept of sexuality and love in not just the legal drafting but also of its execution and interpretation. But a pertinent concern for those in the legal field is the conflict between love and legal responsibility. More recently, those who oppose marriage and queer theorists have argued against the legalization of romantic partnerships by the state.
Modern developments in Law has taken an interesting outlook
into this facet of society and to identify how the judiciary is to be able to
draw the line between how multiple parties to undesirable circumstances view
it. Recently in India, The Delhi High Court has firmly affirmed that Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was never intended to criminalize
young people' consensual love relationships; instead, its purpose is to protect
minors from sexual exploitation. This was made clear in the Madras High Court's
ruling in the case of Vijayalakshmi & Anr. v. State & Anr. in 2021,
when Justice N. Anand Venkatesh dropped out all the charges against a young man
in his 20s who had married a juvenile and fled with her after feeling pressure
from her family. While the act has been important in prosecuting perpetrators
of serious sexual offenses against minors, Justice Venkatesh emphasized that
sometimes offenses are "slapped against teens" who fall prey to
POCSO. He noted the decision in Sabari v. Inspector of Police. The court noted
and reaffirmed in this instance that a connection between minors that may be
the "product of mutual innocence and biological desire" cannot be
deemed alien and must not be criminalized.
The Sri Lankan Supreme Court too took a new outlook into the terminology of the word “consent” in the light of an alleged sexual assault or rape within the boundaries of a romantic relationship between the two parties in such a case. Eva Wanasundera PC J, in what I consider to be one of the best judicial interpretations of law with regards to romance and love stated that, A defendant cannot use the factor of consent in a statutory rape case as an advantage in the case. In many cases, the pretext of a statutory rape case is based on romantic relationships. As a result, case law was used to establish a rather ambiguous context about statutory rape in our legal system. The goal of this is to protect young people from the harsh sanctions of the law, provide them a fulfilling social life, and provide fair compensation to the wronged ladies.
We need to take into account the arguments that show how
laws intended to safeguard romantic partnerships inadvertently burden people's
decision to stay married, risk spontaneous emotional outburst, are
intrinsically unstable, are repressive, and that love is a political virtue. The
“love revolution” is just beginning,
Leo Kalindu Dharmapriya
Comments
Post a Comment