Poonam Sharma
The recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in X vs State (2025), dismissing a rape case against a married pilot, has again created a renewed controversy over where personal freedom stops and society’s common moral fabric takes over. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s remarks, that “two consenting adults – even if one is married – can be in a relationship without judges imposing their personal morality”, hit at the very core of an extremely sensitive concern in Indian society: the sanctity of marriage, particularly as conceived in the Hindu social tradition.
The Judgment in Context
On 12 September 2025, Justice Sharma emphasized that the justice system has to be in sync with changing societal norms. The Court ruled that if a highly educated woman decides to pursue a relationship with a married man, she assumes the consequences of doing so, including the possibility that the relationship may never result in marriage or may sour badly.
Significantly, however, the Court held that the law cannot always be used as a solution for dysfunctional consensual relationships. Judges, it underlined, are also members of the same society and cannot use an “outdated lens” when judging human relations that have evolved over the years. The decision therefore constituted a strong departure from judicial moralizing and towards emphasis on individual responsibility and consent.
A Clash of Two Value Systems
This argument, although enlightened to most, goes head-to-head against the Hindu understanding of marriage as a sacred samskara (ritual obligation) instead of a contract. Hindu marriage is historically understood as the cornerstone of dharma, lineage, and social order. The religious texts, social norms, and family values enshrine the sacredness of vivaha.
In this vision, extra-marital affairs imperil not only specific households but the moral environment in general. The Hindu social fabric has been based since centuries on a rigorous code of ethics regarding fidelity and familial duty. Even when legislation like the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 brought some areas of marriage into the contemporary mould, they did not undermine its very holiness.
Thus, when a constitutional court says that consensual adult relationships—married couples included—must be considered without moral bias, it deflects a central pillar of Hindu social philosophy: that marriage is not only individual but communal and sacred.
Individual Autonomy vs. Communal Dharma
The High Court ruling is an echo of the international tendency to prioritise autonomy of the individual. In liberal democratic Western societies, adult consent is regarded as the absolute criterion of legality, and marital status is of marginal importance in assessing moral legitimacy. However, in Hindu culture, freedom of the individual is not unfettered; it is set against dharma (obligation) to family and society.
This clash between personal autonomy and public responsibility lies at the core of this debate. Defenders of the verdict say adults are entitled to personal choices and that the state should not regulate morality. Their critics, on the other hand, say that legalising relationships with married people degrades not just legal protections but also the social rules that are what keep families together.
The Social Fallout: Why the Verdict Worries Traditionalists
From the perspective of the traditionalist Hindu, the ruling threatens a double erosion:
Destruction of Sanctity in Marriage: By declining to stigmatize or penalize married individuals for liaisons, fidelity turns into an individual choice instead of a social expectation. This destroys the trust on which Hindu families rest.
Moral Confusion Amongst Young People: The ruling might tell young Indians that marriage is not a sacred boundary anymore but one amongst a sea of fluid relationships. For a civilisation that believes family stability is the foundation of social order, this change could have destabilising effects.
In addition, conservatives are apprehensive that the legitimation of such unions will bring with it more litigation, emotional distress to spouses and children, and dissipation of community values—all in the interest of individual freedom.
Legal Realism vs. Cultural Sentiment
Justice Sharma’s judgment does not legalize adultery in itself—India’s Supreme Court already declared the colonial legislation on adultery unconstitutional in 2018—but it does seal a legal outlook that morality cannot be imposed on consensual adult conduct. The tone of the Court was unmistakable: it is not the job of the judiciary to moralize; it is to determine legality.
Still, Hindu family and marriage traditions exist within a system of morality, ritual, and social duty that goes beyond the law. The law’s inability to interact with this system creates a void. Practically, it might encourage individuals to view nuptial promises as negotiable or disposable, thus undermining an institution that traditionally has united Hindu society.
The Case as a Moral Parable
Facts of the case are a lesson for the times. The cabin crew member alleged that the married pilot had promised marriage, abused intimate photographs, and forced abortions. The Court observed that she knew he was married a few days after their first meeting but carried on with a consensual affair for more than two years. She lodged a rape complaint only when the affair went sour.
For the Court, this chain demonstrated mutual agreement and adult autonomy. For traditionalists, it indicated the perils of a moral void in which marriage no longer draws lines on relationships.
The Way Forward: Reconciling Law and Tradition
The Delhi High Court decision cannot be understood independently. It follows an era of Indian society where India is already reeling from rapid urbanization, exposure to universal lifestyles, and an increasing disparity between values in the past and values in the present.
A positive way forward would include:
Civic Education: Educating young adults on both their legal rights and the cultural implications of their decisions.
Strengthening Family Counseling: Opening doors for marital counseling and conflict resolution before relationships reach the point of criminal cases.
Balanced Jurisprudence: Without undermining adult consent, courts might still uphold the social value of fidelity and stability in families and present it as a social good and not a judicial imposition.
Conclusion: The Crossroads of Freedom and Dharma
Delhi High Court’s ruling is a milestone in India’s path from community-based morality to individual-based legality. It suggests a judiciary sensitive to contemporary reality but perhaps out of touch with the moral traditions that long underpinned Hindu society.
Whether this is seen as progress or danger is in the eye of the beholder. For liberal minds, the judgment is a victory for autonomy, dignity, and realism about adult relations. For traditionalists, it is an existential threat to the Hindu system of marriage, in which vows are unbreakable, fidelity is obligatory, and family is the centre of civilisation.
The conflict between these two visions—social dharma and individual freedom—will determine not only future court decisions but also the very moral contours of Indian society in the decades ahead.
