'Pre-marital sex immoral': The trouble with media's attention-grabbing headline

“Pre-marital sex immoral, no religion allows it, says judge,” shouted the headlines. This one is from The Hindustan Times. It’s apparent that media chose to see and read only a couple of lines from the judge’s order. Finally, an opinion of the judge became the headline, not the operative content of the order itself. As the nation grapples with the new definition of rape and of the upholding of Sec 377, the judge’s order is a breath of fresh air. [caption id=“attachment_1273071” align=“alignright” width=“380”]  AFP[/caption] “In his ruling, additional sessions judge Virender Bhat also said every act of sexual intercourse between two adults on the promise of marriage did not become rape. “When a grown up, educated and office going woman subjects herself to sexual intercourse with a friend or colleague on the latter’s promise that he would marry her, she does so at her own peril.” The judge further held in his ruling a fortnight ago, “She must be taken to understand the consequences of her act and must know that there is no guarantee that the boy would fulfil his promise. He may or may not do so,” the HT report says. The judge then added, “She must understand that she is engaging in an act which not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion. No religion in the world allows pre-marital sex.” What the judge says is that consensual sex between two adults, even if marriage has been promised, cannot be interpreted as rape. He adds that there is ‘no guarantee that the boy would fulfil his promise.” The trouble with the HT headline is endemic of the way most Indian media deals with news such as this one. The headline “Pre-marital sex immoral, no religion allows it, says judge” is far more attention-grabbing than a headline saying “All pre-marital sex is not rape, says judge”. The classic example of tabloid journalism headlines, “Man bites dog”, which is infinitely more sensational than the mundane and routine “Dog bites man” seems to have been embraced by the news media in India. Tragically, what seems to be a mature, well thought-through judgment goes unnoticed because of the need for sensationalism, thanks to the opinion of the judge that pre-marital sex is immoral. How difficult is it to remember that in judgements, it is the operative portions of the order that become precedents and case studies, and not the opinions?