State of Maharashtra v. Madhkar Narayan Mardikar
Bench: Division Bench — 2 Judges (K.N. Saikia & R.M. Sahai JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
A police officer was accused of raping a woman who was known as a woman of 'loose character'. The trial court and High Court acquitted him, relying partly on the victim's alleged promiscuity. The Supreme Court used the case to deliver a decisive ruling against the use of a rape victim's past sexual conduct as evidence of consent.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Can the past sexual conduct or 'loose character' of a rape victim be used to infer consent to the specific alleged act of rape?
- 2What weight should be given to the testimony of a rape victim who is alleged to be a woman of 'easy virtue'?
The Judgment
The Supreme Court convicted the accused and delivered a landmark ruling: every woman — regardless of her past sexual conduct, profession, or character — has the right to say 'no' to sexual intercourse at any time and with any person. A woman of allegedly 'loose character' retains the same absolute right to bodily integrity as any other person. Her past conduct with other men is wholly irrelevant to whether she consented to intercourse with the accused on the specific occasion.
Key Principles Laid Down
EVERY WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY NO: Regardless of her past sexual history, profession, or character, every woman has the absolute right to refuse sexual intercourse with any person at any time. The right to bodily integrity does not depend on sexual history.
PAST SEXUAL CONDUCT ≠ CONSENT TO THIS ACT: A woman's sexual history with other persons — or even with the accused in the past — cannot be used to infer consent to the specific sexual act alleged in the prosecution. Each sexual act requires independent consent.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE TO PROVE CONSENT: Evidence of a rape victim's past sexual conduct, character, or reputation is inadmissible to challenge the credibility of her testimony or to infer consent. (Section 155(4) IEA was subsequently deleted by the 2002 amendment following this judicial direction.)
EQUAL PROTECTION REGARDLESS OF PROFESSION OR STATUS: A sex worker, a woman with multiple partners, or any woman with an unconventional sexual history has the same rape law protection as any other woman. Her character cannot diminish the criminal liability of the accused.
Impact on Indian Law
Madhkar Narayan is the foundational case for the principle that a rape victim's sexual history is irrelevant to consent — predating the statutory deletion of Section 155(4) IEA in 2002. It is cited alongside Gurmit Singh (1996) for victim testimony principles and against character assassination in sexual offence cases. The principle is now embedded in the BSA 2023 and the post-2013 IEA amendments.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the past sexual history of a rape victim be used as evidence in court?
No. Madhkar Narayan (1991) and Gurmit Singh (1996) established that a rape victim's past sexual history is irrelevant to consent. Every woman — regardless of her character or past — has the absolute right to refuse sexual intercourse. Section 155(4) IEA (which allowed such cross-examination) was deleted by the 2002 amendment. BSA 2023 and post-2013 IEA provisions continue this prohibition.