A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the observations while acquitting a man accused of rape.
The judges stressed that criminal law should not be weaponised following emotional disputes or the breakdown of relationships between two consenting adults.
"We wish to note a worrying trend in recent years wherein consensual relationships that have come to an end are retrospectively combed with a fine tooth so as to identify what can post-facto be construed as violence and sexual assault," the bench observed.
'Does a man have no right to withdraw from a relationship?'
The court drew a distinction between sexual relationships in which consent was obtained through deception or false promises from the outset and those in which two adults willingly entered into a relationship but later parted ways.
The judges observed that the end of a relationship cannot automatically turn previously consensual sexual encounters into criminal offences.
Highlighting the importance of individual autonomy, the bench questioned whether a man's decision to withdraw from a relationship could be treated as deceit or fraud.
"In fact, such an approach denudes the man of any agency entirely, as the mere factum of being in a consensual relationship at one point would bind him to it entirely for fear of being accused of rape at a subsequent point of time," the court said.
"In such a scenario, can it be said that the man had no right to withdraw from the relationship? Can such a decision be termed as deceit or fraud? Clearly not," it added.
Supreme Court warns against weaponisation of criminal law
The judges said they had repeatedly encountered cases in which failed relationships eventually resulted in criminal proceedings.
While acknowledging the seriousness of rape as an offence, the court emphasised that allegations must be assessed on the basis of the actual circumstances, including whether sexual violence, coercion or deception was involved.
The bench cautioned that converting every broken consensual relationship into a rape prosecution could dilute the gravity of a serious criminal offence.
It also underlined the potential consequences for an individual's personal liberty and reputation when consensual encounters are retrospectively portrayed as criminal acts without a proper factual basis.
Court says genuine rape complaints must be investigated
At the same time, the Supreme Court made it clear that its observations should not undermine genuine complaints of sexual assault.
The bench acknowledged that a considerable number of rape cases remain unreported, with many victims choosing not to come forward because of concerns about their own reputation and that of their families.
The judges stressed that cases involving actual sexual violence or assault must be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.
The court's observations underline the need to distinguish between genuine allegations of sexual violence and disputes arising from relationships that have ended, while ensuring that criminal law is neither misused nor denied to those who need its protection.