A Law Student's Contention

In an era where the human rights activists are fighting for the abolishing capital punishment terming it as 'inhumane', courts revert to this punishment as a matter of last resort and plenty of safeguards have been put in place. The sentence passed by the trial court has to confirmed by the high court. The decisions of the lower court can go into appeal to the apex court and the decision of the court is final and binding over all courts throughout the territory of the country [1] and the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged before any other court. Article 21 of our constitution gives the right to life to every person which cannot be taken away except by procedure established by law and  Constitutional courts in India are the ultimate guardians of this right. Capital Punishment has always been seen as an attack on the right to life and voices have been raised again and again labeling capital punishment as ‘barbaric’ and ‘inhumane’ which should be done away

Recently, in an order delivered through single bench, the Delhi High Court in Mahmood Farooqui v. State acquitted the defendant of the charges of rape alleged by a US research scholar, reversing the order of the trial court. The judgment has been subjected to much criticism by the intelligentsia and feminist groups from all over the country, terming it as ‘dangerous’ and ‘outrageous’.  Judiciary has also been criticized and accused of misogyny and gender biases. Now, in the opinion of the author, the judgment is a well crafted and well thought one, which has been rendered after taking all the circumstances into consideration. This article tries to bring out the intricacies of ‘consent’ how it is to be read in context in the present case. During the course of this article, the author will analyze of the judgment and its various aspects and will also try to justify it. Brief Facts- The Prosecutrix, a US research scholar was in search of some contact for getting information