Naviating Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

LEGAL DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita states as follows:

“Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—“deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity.”[i]

Deceitful means: Under this section would mean consensual sexual intercourse under the false pretense of employment or marriage.

False promises: This would imply the person in question who made the promise has no intention of fulfilling such promises.

Not amounting to rape: The element of consent is present, hence the act would not amount to rape, but since the element of deceit is involved, the act would be punishable for 10 years under the new code.

ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM

The intent of the law has been to safeguard women from being lured in through false promises, but this particular law has raised a lot of eyebrows as well. Not only does the law seem to have a misogynistic undertone to it, but there are several practical and procedural conundrums this law poses.

According to the Standing Committee Report on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 69, the promise to marry has certain issues in the following spectrums: subjectivity and intent, privacy and autonomy, lack of clear parameters, cultural and social dynamics, enforcement challenges and gender dynamics.[ii] That is:

  • Determination of intention is subjective and since intentions change with time, the proof of the promise where and when the deceitful intentions have been made can be arduous to prove.
  • Matters of intimate relations between two people are personal and intrusive in nature, criminalisation of promises can be considered as unwarranted interference.
  • The law lacks well-defined parameters on what constitutes a legally binding promise to marry, this can create further ambiguity and inconsistencies in enforcement and judicial interpretations.
  • Further law enforcement will face issues in gathering substantial evidence of what may be oral or verbal communications between the parties in question.
  • In the long run these laws may seem to disproportionately affect certain genders and may perpetrate damaging gender stereotypes.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Section 69 BNS

Some critics argue that several patriarchal norms are woven into the provision.[iii] There is also concern raised on how such kinds of law promote the Victorian concepts of safeguarding chastity, and therefore when the promise is broken, the act becomes offensive. It also raises the question: if the so-called false promises are fulfilled, would such acts become an offence under this section? This law also implicitly propagates and perpetuates the ideology of quid pro quo which getting something in return for another, which contradicts underlying values established under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act.

THE WAY FORWARD

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita marks a shift in the criminal landscape of India. The section in question has come into existence in order to accommodate contemporary social norms and was brought into place to shield women from exploitation, but a well-intentioned law will not serve its legislative purpose if the ambiguity in definitions and applicability continues. What is necessary is clearer definitions and guidelines to enforcement agencies on what circumstances would fall under the section, establishing evidentiary standards and embracing a progressive legal framework that navigates the complexities of modern society but at the same time has a fair and consistent application that upholds equity and justice will serve the ultimate goal of criminal legislation.

Author: Sumana Satyamurthy, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[i] Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita <https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf>

[ii] Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India, Two Hundred Forty-Seventh Report on The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,https://sansad.in/getFile/rsnew/Committee_site/Committee_File/ReportFile/15/188/247_2023_11_16.pdf?source=rajyasabha (10th November 2023).

[iii] Sandhya Ram, “Critiquing Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita: A Shamefully Misogynistic Approach?,” Live Law (accessed July 5, 2024), https://www.livelaw.in/articles/shamefully-misogynistic-section-69-bharatiya-nyaya-samhita-262052.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010