Context: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces Section 69, criminalizing sexual intercourse through “deceitful means,” including false promises of marriage.

• This law addresses gaps in earlier provisions but raises concerns about gender bias, evidence collection, and its impact on consensual relationships.

• Legal experts and courts offer differing views, igniting debates on privacy and autonomy.

Key Provisions of Section 69

• Section 69 addresses situations where a man engages in sexual relations under the false pretense of marriage, with no intention of honoring the promise.

• It prescribes a penalty of up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine for those found guilty of such acts.

• Scope and Application: The law extends to situations involving false promises of marriage, employment, or promotion, where the person who deceives the victim is penalized for inducing sexual intercourse through deceit. It does not classify such cases as rape but as “inducement” through fraudulent means.

• Support for Section 69: It addresses the gaps left by the IPC, especially in cases where sexual intercourse is obtained through deceit. Section 69 broadens the definition of coercion to include emotional and psychological pressure, which was not explicitly covered under the previous law.

Historical Context and Evolution of the Law

• Before the enactment of the BNS, similar cases were registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

• These sections addressed rape through repeated sexual acts and consent obtained under false pretenses.

• The new law explicitly includes terms like “deceitful means” and “inducement” to address ambiguities in the IPC.

Legal Challenges and Differing Judicial Opinions

• Courts have taken varying stands on cases under Section 69:Some courts quashed cases where long-term relationships implied mutual consent and understanding.

• Others ruled that promises made without intent to fulfill them at the outset constitute criminal acts.

• Concerns have been raised about the criminalization of consensual relationships that turn sour.

• Gender Bias and Criticism Critics argue that Section 69 reinforces gender stereotypes by presuming women lack agency in sexual matters.

• The law is seen as inherently biased, penalizing men for false promises of marriage while excluding other genders and scenarios.

• A public petition has called for its repeal, citing concerns about its discriminatory nature and disregard for mutual consent.

Statistical Insights

• National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data from 2016 to 2022 shows that up to 40% of rape allegations pertained to false promises of marriage or similar accusations.

• The average conviction rate for all rape cases during this period was 29.71%.

Parliamentary Report and Constitutional Concerns

• A parliamentary report on the BNS highlighted challenges in proving promises to marry, as intentions can change over time.

• The report cautioned against vague definitions that could lead to inconsistencies in enforcement.

• It also raised concerns about intrusions into individual privacy and autonomy.

Support for Section 69

• Proponents argue that Section 69 closes legal loopholes by explicitly addressing coercion through psychological or emotional manipulation.

• The law aims to protect women in patriarchal societies where marriage often defines their personhood.

Constitutional Challenge

• A public interest litigation has been filed, questioning the constitutional validity of Section 69.

• Concerns include its exclusion of the LGBTQ community, potential misuse in live-in relationships, and violation of individual rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• The High Court has sought a response from the government on this issue.

Conclusion

• Section 69 of the BNS represents a shift in how sexual relationships based on deceit are addressed legally in India. While it aims to protect women from exploitation through false promises, its broad application, gender implications, and the subjective nature of proving intent have raised serious legal and societal concerns. Ongoing debates and court rulings will continue to shape how this law is enforced and interpreted in the future.