Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Section 69

INTRODUCTION:

The recent uproar in the legal community on social media stems from the preface of three bills in Parliament the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill. These bills are slated to replace the foundational felonious law documents in India — the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973       (CrPC), and the Indian substantiation Act, 1872.

While numerous vittles in these proposed “Sanhitas” and “Adhiniyams” glass those in the being” Canons” and” Act,” one section, in particular, has sparked off an expansive debate, that’s Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Clause 69 says that if a man promises to marry a woman, but doesn’t actually intend to marry her, and still has consensual coitus with her, this will amount to a felonious offence. Coitus under deceitful means or false pledges to marry, may be penalized with a captivity term that can extend up to 10 times and a forfeiture. With this a separate section has been sculpted out, secerning these cases from rape cases. Deceitful means, as outlined, encompass cases similar as the” false assurance of employment or creation” and the act of misleading someone by concealing one’s true identity with the intention to induce marriage.

Whereas, in false pledges of marriage, it is specifically applicable when a man designedly makes a commitment to marry a woman,  with the deceptive intention of reneging on that pledge. This deceptive act aims to gain the woman’s concurrence under false pretenses, eventually leading to sexual exploitation.[1]

HOW DOES BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA DIFFERS FROM AN EXISTING IPC PROVISION AND WHAT ALTERATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE:

The recently proposed provision, Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita( BNS), introduces a nuanced approach in addressing cases of sexual intercourse attained through deceitful means, distinct from the being Indian Penal Code( IPC) provision, particularly Section 493.

Section 493 of the IPC pertains to deceiving a woman into believing she’s lawfully wedded, converting her to abide or engage in sexual intercourse. The new provision in the BNS, Section 69, seems analogous but holds differences in its operation. It outlines cases where dishonesty is employed, leading to sexual intercourse, but specifically excludes situations amounting to the offense of rape. The pivotal difference lies in the description of deceitful means and the compass of sexual exploitation without constituting rape. This new provision highlights that if sexual intercourse occurs with concurrence attained through fraud, it falls under Section 69 rather than being considered rape under Section 63 of the BNS.

Elderly, Advocate Sidharth Luthra observes this distinction by emphasizing that while rape involves intercourse without concurrence, Section 69 covers cases where concurrence is attained deceitfully. Still, he raises enterprises regarding the need for clarity within Section 69 to avoid inscrutability or misconstructions. Differing opinions crop among legal experts regarding the necessity and counteraccusations of Section 69. Advocate Dhruv Gupta suggests that Section 69 is an extension of the discipline for rape, citing the absence of a specific provision in the former law addressing sexual intercourse grounded on false pledges of marriage.[2]

Gupta points out that the BNS contains a concurrence clause akin to Section 90 of the IPC. As per his analysis, if concurrence is absent per Section 28 of the proposed law, it might constitute rape. still, if concurrence is attained through deceitful means, like false pledges of employment or marriage with vicious intent, it falls within the horizon of Section 69, and so the preface of Section 69 in the BNS aims to sculpt out a separate legal provision to address cases of sexual intercourse eased by dishonesty, distinct from the IPC’s vittles, emphasizing the pivotal aspect of concurrence attained under fraudulent pretenses.

‘FALSE PROMISE TO MARRIAGE ’ AND ‘ BREACH OF PROMISE’

Distinguishing between whether a pledge of marriage is genuine or false largely hinges on the man’s intent at the time of engaging in sexual intercourse. This assessment of intent frequently poses a significant challenge for courts, adding complexity to similar cases.

For illustration If a man made a pledge of marriage with sincere intentions, but unlooked-for circumstances averted him from fulfilling that commitment, the legal viewpoint wouldn’t classify it as a’ false pledge.’ In similar cases, the crux lies in secerning between a purposeful dishonesty and a genuine intention baffled by unlooked-for events. The difficulty arises in discerning the factual intent of the individual making the pledge at the time when the pledge was made. Courts frequently defy the intricate task of probing into the existent’s state of mind, trying to ascertain whether there was a deliberate intent to deceive or if the pledge was authentically made with the intention of recognizing it, indeed if unlooked-for circumstances latterly averted its fulfillment.

This intricacy underscores the challenges in adjudging cases where pledges of marriage are involved. The legal system faces the daunting task of unraveling the complications of mortal intentionality, especially when it comes to deeply particular matters similar as connections and commitments, where intentions may be subject to change due to colorful unlooked-for circumstances.[3]

ENABLING WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT THROUGH SECTION 69

Combating Deceptive Practices Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) emerges as a pivotal safeguard against deceptive practices, furnishing a legal frame that offers expedient to women who might fall prey to false pledges. By criminalizing conduct involving deceitful means, this provision aims to empower women, allowing them to make informed choices in colorful angles of their lives. Section 69 of the BNS serves as a defensive guard, offering affected women an effective remedy in similar situations.

Unveiling Concealed individualities the comprehensive interpretation of “deceitful means” reprised within Section 69 of the BNS extends to scripts where individualities designedly mask their true individualities. This hand of the provision earnings significance in cases where women might find themselves in connections innovated upon misinformation and fraudulent practices.[4]

CHALLENGES AND CRITICS OF SECTION 69 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA:

Despite the intended objects of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to address deceitful practices leading to sexual exploitation, the provision has been met with significant review for its implicit indigenous and practical failings. Critics argue that the law is innately gender prejudiced, discriminational, and fails to adequately cover individual rights and freedoms. Several crucial enterprises have been raised regarding its constitutionality, presumption of agency, nebulosity in defining connections, implicit for abuse, and disproportionate corrections.

• CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS:

Foremost among the criticisms is the assertion that Section 69 violates indigenous guarantees of equivalency and non-discrimination. Papers 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution explicitly enjoin demarcation grounded on gender, among other factors. Still, by presuming that only men can deceive women into sexual connections with false pledges of marriage, the law perpetuates gender conceptions and denies women agency in sexual matters. Likewise, it overlooks the possibility of women also being perpetrators of deceitful practices, thereby undermining the principle of equivalency before the law.

• PRESUMPTION OF AGENCY AND CONSENT:

Critics argue that Section 69 undermines the agency and autonomy of adult women by presuming that they warrant the capacity to make informed opinions regarding their own bodies and sexual connections. By criminalizing consensual sexual connections grounded on pledges of marriage, job, or creation, the law disregards the complications of mortal connections and fails to fete the significance of individual concurrence. This approach is seen as accumulative and paternalistic, buttressing traditional gender places and immortalizing victim- condemning stations.

• AMBIGUITY IN RELATIONSHIP DELINEATIONS:

Another significant concern revolves around the nebulosity in defining the duration and nature of connections covered under Section 69. Without clear guidelines on the timeframe within which a pledge of marriage or employment must be fulfilled, any adulterous relationship, including long- term affairs or live- in arrangements, could potentially be missed as cases of false pledges. This nebulosity not only creates query for individualities but also increases the liability of arbitrary enforcement and abuse of the law.

• POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE AND DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENTS:

Critics advise of the law’s vulnerability to abuse, particularly in cases where false allegations are made for particular vendettas or ulterior motives. The absence of safeguards against abuse, similar as vittles for strict penalties for false allegations, raises enterprises about the eventuality for innocent individualities to be unfairly targeted and fulfilled. also, the duty of harsh corrections, including up to 10 times of imprisonment and forfeitures, without taking substantial substantiation of dishonesty or detriment, exacerbates the threat of deliveries of justice and undermines the presumption of innocence.

Therefore, Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita faces significant challenges and critics regarding its constitutionality, presumption of agency, nebulosity in relationship delineations, implicit for abuse, and disproportionate corrections. Addressing these enterprises requires a careful reassessment of the Vittles to insure alignment with indigenous principles of equivalency, fairness, and individual rights. Also, robust safeguards must be incorporated to help the abuse of the law and cover against unjust issues. Only through thoughtful deliberation and comprehensive reforms can the legal frame effectively address the complications of sexual connections while upholding abecedarian principles of justice and quality for all individualities.

WHY THIS LAW SHOULD BE REPEALED

Abuse of IPC 498A has been proved in endless judgments across high court and indeed Supreme Court of India. Abuse of this law has destroyed innumerous families in India and subordinated lakhs of men and women to arrest. The law has been known to be misused in any situation of a marriage breakdown whether the hubby or his Family are at any fault or not.

Section 69 BNS is also prone to be misused in any situation of a consensual affair going sour making any man susceptible to such a charge for the only mistake of breaking up. The law has come without any checks or balances whatsoever to save innocent persons from being subordinated to a long felonious trial without any fault. As there’s no duration specified in the law of durability of sexual relationship grounded on a certain pledge, medical substantiation will hold no applicability in similar matters and the law will be a situation of he said, she said where her statement will weigh above his attestations. Still, there should be thorough discussion process with citizens of this country before passing such a law, If the lawgivers intend to bring this new provision on the enactment for whatever reason. In its current form, section 69 should be repealed.[5]

CONCLUSION:

In my opinion, section 69 mentioned in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita act, is an active approach and action for empowering the status of women in our society and guarding their chastity in order to promote justice, equivalency and reduce the violence abuse rate against them. Expectation surrounds a implicit overhaul in India’s felonious justice system with the proposed law, promising a more indifferent, effective, and responsive frame aligned with the demands of the crowd. This transformative new law remains in the draft stage, challenging perpetration and witnessing essential variations.

The suggested emendations to the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita signify a combined bid to contemporize the Indian legal system, icing its enhanced responsiveness to contemporary challenges and bolstering its overall effectiveness. Yet, before it gains blessing in Parliament, an expansive process of conversations and consultations with colorful stakeholders and legal experts must unfold.  The trip towards making the amended Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita requires a cooperative and exemplary approach. By engaging with stakeholders and legal experts in a transparent and inclusive manner, the proposed emendations can be meliorated to more meet the requirements of contemporary society, eventually strengthening the Indian legal system.

We, the citizens of this country are contending to the government to review this provision of law so that innocent lives aren’t subordinated to LEGAL TERRORISM.

Reference(s):

[1] JudiX, ‘Section 69 BNS:| Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita |Bare Act| New IPC’, (Sep 15, 2023) <https://www.myjudix.com/post/section-69-bns-section-69-of-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bare-act-new-ipc> accessed Dec 14, 2023.

[2] LinkedIn, Adv. Nitika Gupta, ‘On the Crime of ‘False Promise to Marry’, (October 12, 2023) <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crime-false-promise-marry-nitika-gupta/>

[3] Civilsdaily, ‘Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 on False Promise of Marriage’ (September 11, 2023) https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/nyaya-sanhita-false-promise-of-marriage/

[4] JudiX, ‘Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Safeguarding Women Against Deceptive Promises| Insights on how Section 69 BNS can be useful for victims’, (January 2, 2023) <https://www.myjudix.com/post/section-69-of-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bns-insights-section-69-bns-can-be-useful-for-victims>

[5] Change.org, REPEAL SECTION 69 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023 (January 10, 2024) <https://www.change.org/p/repeal-section-69-of-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023>