1) This news report is misleading. This was only an observation by the Court - an obiter in a bail matter, not a ratio.
2) The Supreme Court ( Justice DYC) in a recent jt. has distinguished between false promise to marry and breach of promise. The former will qualify as rape + https://twitter.com/smyltr/status/1264535727318003712

+ while the latter will not, he held.
3) This whole concept of false promise to marry amounting to rape, is a judicial construct and is not part of the IPC despite S. 375 being amended even very recently. This could have very easily been added given that multiple jts held it in+

+ the past, but it was not added. The Legislature in its wisdom, chose not to add it. Which makes this provision a piece of judicial legislation despite the IPC being a complete code. This cannot be permitted with this or any other law.

4) It is dangerous to permit adults, +

+ no matter how sheltered or marginalized, to put forth a contention that they"were taken advantage of". Unless there was a threat to her life or she was intoxicated, it was simply a case of poor judgment and no matter how unfair it sounds, poor judgement on the part of one +

+ cannot be an offence for another.
Such provisions can only be permitted to be added to a text if they are gender neutral, which rape law isn't in India. In any society which considers it a stigma to have pre marital sex,one must not have pre marital sex, promise or no promise.