SECTION 69 BNS: POLITY

SECTION 69 BNS: POLITY

NEWS: IMF cuts global growth outlook; India’s growth forecast seen lower at 6.2 per cent for FY26

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita introduces a redundant and weaker offence for sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage, despite existing judicial safeguards and definitions under rape laws, raising constitutional and legal concerns about dilution and inconsistency.

Context and Legislative Background

  • Introduction of a New Offence:
  • Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces a new standalone offence for sexual intercourse on the basis of a false promise of marriage.
  • It prescribes lesser punishment than that for rape, making it distinct from the standard offences under rape provisions.
  • Comparison with Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Under the earlier Indian Penal Code (IPC), there was no separate section dealing specifically with false promises of marriage.
  • Such cases were interpreted under Section 375 IPC (which defined rape), now replaced by Section 63 BNS in the new code.
  • Relevance to GS Paper 2:
  • Falls under Judiciary and Social Justice topics, particularly regarding gender justice, criminal jurisprudence, and legal reforms.

Supreme Court’s Stand and Judicial Interpretation

  • Judicial Filters to Prevent Misuse:
  • Over the years, the Supreme Court has developed clear jurisprudence to differentiate between genuine rape cases and consensual relationships gone sour.
  • Key Judicial Principles:
  • Intention Test:
      • Case: Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019).
      • Principle: Unless it is shown that the man never intended to marry from the very beginning, it does not amount to rape.
      • If there was genuine intent initially, later breakdown of the relationship does not convert consensual sex into rape.
  • Nature of Relationship:
      • Case: Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. (2025).
      • Principle: A 15-year long consensual relationship, later ending in betrayal, does not qualify as rape under false promise grounds.
      • Importance: Duration and conduct during the relationship matter significantly in judicial assessment.
  • Marital Status and Consent:
      • Case: Abhishek Arjariya v. State of M.P. (2025).
      • Principle: If the prosecutrix (woman) was already married, her consent cannot be claimed to be based on a misconception regarding marriage.

Critique of Section 69 BNS

  • Text of Section 69:
  • Targets cases where sexual intercourse is achieved through deceitful means, including false promise of marriage.
  • The provision also mentions false promises of employment, promotion, and suppression of real identity (e.g., hiding one's religion or marital status).
  • Legal Redundancy and Overlap:
  • Section 28 BNS:
      • Defines consent and states that consent obtained by "misconception of fact" is invalid.
      • False promise of marriage already falls within the definition of "misconception of fact".
  • Section 63 BNS:
      • Defines rape, and consensual sex obtained through misconception already qualifies as rape under it.
  • Therefore, Section 69 duplicates an already punishable offence, but provides a lighter punishment, thereby diluting the gravity of the crime.

Constitutional and Doctrinal Issues

  • Absence of Exception in Section 63:
  • No clear exception is made in Section 63 for offences under Section 69.
  • This creates conflict and ambiguity, as similar facts could lead to different charges and punishments, violating the principle of legal certainty.
  • No Non-Obstante Clause in Section 69:
  • A non-obstante clause ("notwithstanding anything contained...") would have clarified that Section 69 overrides Section 63 in certain cases.
  • Without it, Section 69 could easily be challenged for violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution due to arbitrary classification.
  • Potential for Legal Confusion:
  • Courts, lawyers, and law enforcement may face confusion while deciding:
      • Whether to file a case under Section 63 or Section 69.
      • Whether to punish a serious offence with a lighter penalty.
  • Risk of Legal Escape Routes:
  • Genuine offenders might seek milder punishment under Section 69 by manipulating charges, undermining the purpose of stringent rape laws.

Administrative Implications

  • Judicial Practice on False Cases:
  • Courts have already developed precedents for quashing false rape cases, where relationships were consensual but later turned hostile.
  • Police Procedures:
  • Police are advised to conduct preliminary inquiries before filing FIRs in such sensitive cases.
  • This prevents frivolous cases from reaching trial, protects innocent individuals, and preserves judicial time and resources.
  • Operational Redundancy:
  • The addition of Section 69 offers no practical advantage in fighting crime, while complicating investigations.

Conclusion

  • No Change to Core Definitions:
  • The fundamental definitions of rape and consent remain the same under BNS compared to the IPC.
  • Redundancy of Section 69:
  • Section 69 BNS is legally unnecessary, as existing provisions already cover the intended offences.
  • It weakens the seriousness of rape under false promise of marriage by offering lighter punishment.
  • Potential Unconstitutionality:
  • Section 69 violates constitutional principles (equality before law) and is likely to face legal challenges.
  • Overall, it appears redundant, confusing, and unsustainable from a legal and policy perspective.

 

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/business/economy/imf-warns-trumps-tariffs-will-hurt-us-and-global-growth-9959281/