Concerns Over 10-Year Jail for Break-Ups Under Section 69 of BNS

Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has introduced a new legal provision that criminalizes sexual relationships established on the pretext of marriage. According to this section, if an individual deceives another by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling that promise, and engages in sexual intercourse under this false pretense, they can face up to 10 years of imprisonment. This section aims to protect individuals, particularly women, from being misled into intimate relationships under false promises of marriage. This article researches into experts’ concerns about Section 69 of the BNS, focusing on its potential misuse, the challenges it poses for men in relationships, and the difficulties law enforcement faces in building a solid case with credible evidence. It also examines the historical context of laws on consent and deception, the impact on modern relationships, and the subjective nature of proving intent to marry. Through various perspectives and public reactions, the article provides a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and consequences of Section 69.

The Significance of Replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the 164-year-old Indian Penal Code (IPC) on July 1, marking a significant shift in the Indian legal framework. The IPC, which had been the basis of criminal law in India since its inception, has now been updated to reflect contemporary issues and societal changes. The introduction of Section 69 is one of the notable changes under the BNS, addressing the gaps and limitations in the IPC related to deceit and consent in relationships. This new provision has sparked a debate among legal experts, law enforcement, and the general public about its implications and potential misuse.

Understanding Section 69 of BNS

Definition and Provisions of Section 69: Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means. Specifically, it states that if a person engages in sexual relations by making a false promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling the promise, they can face up to 10 years of imprisonment and may also be liable for a fine. The term “deceitful means” is explicitly defined to include false promises of marriage, employment, or promotion, as well as marrying by concealing one’s identity.

Comparison with Previous Laws under IPC: Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there was no specific provision equivalent to Section 69 of the BNS. Cases involving deceitful promises of marriage were generally addressed under Section 90 of the IPC, which dealt with consent obtained through “misconception of fact.” However, this was not as specific or as punitive as the new Section 69, which directly targets the act of deceit in obtaining sexual consent.

Concerns Raised by Experts On Section 69

Potential Misuse of Section 69: Experts are deeply concerned about the potential misuse of Section 69 of the BNS. The law, designed to protect individuals from deceitful practices in relationships, could unintentionally become a tool for vindictive actions. The misuse can lead to severe legal and social consequences for the accused, undermining the law’s original intent to provide justice. Concerns raised by experts are:

Risk of False Accusations: Section 69 can be exploited for personal vendettas, enabling individuals to falsely accuse partners of deceit to seek revenge after a breakup. This misuse poses significant risks, particularly for men in relationships.
Difficulty in Proving Intent: Proving deceitful intent in promises to marry is challenging. Relationships end for various reasons, and distinguishing genuine intent from deceit is complex, often leading to wrongful accusations and convictions due to insufficient evidence.
Impact on Personal Reputations: False accusations can severely damage personal reputations. Even if proven innocent, the stigma and social repercussions of being accused under Section 69 can have long-lasting effects on an individual’s life and career.
Strain on Legal and Law Enforcement Resources: Investigating claims under Section 69 is resource-intensive. Law enforcement must invest significant time and effort into gathering evidence, potentially diverting resources from other critical duties, and leading to prolonged legal processes and case backlogs.
Erosion of Trust in Relationships: The fear of legal repercussions under Section 69 can create an environment of mistrust in relationships. Individuals may hesitate to engage in romantic relationships or make commitments, fearing potential legal fallout if the relationship does not lead to marriage.
Legal Precedents and Case Studies: Historical cases show that similar provisions have been misused in personal disputes, leading to false accusations and complex legal battles. These precedents highlight the need for strong safeguards to prevent misuse and protect against wrongful accusations.

In summary, Section 69 of the BNS, while aimed at addressing deceit in promises of marriage, carries significant risks of misuse. Addressing these concerns requires careful consideration, strong safeguards, and a balanced approach to ensure that the law protects genuine victims without becoming a tool for harassment.

Harassment Risks for Men in Relationships: One of the significant worries among experts is the risk of harassment that men might face due to Section 69. In relationships where breakups occur, men could be unfairly targeted with accusations of deceitful promises of marriage. Such accusations can lead to lengthy legal battles, imprisonment, and damage to personal reputations, even if the intent to deceive was never present. This potential for harassment could create an environment of fear and mistrust in relationships, discouraging genuine connections and intimacy.

Challenges for Law Enforcement on Section 69

Law enforcement agencies face considerable challenges in implementing Section 69 effectively:

Proving Deceitful Intent: One of the primary challenges for law enforcement under Section 69 of the BNS is proving deceitful intent. The law states that a person can be punished for having sexual intercourse under the false pretense of marriage, but establishing that the promise to marry was made without genuine intent is inherently subjective. Relationships and promises made within them are complex and multifaceted. A broken promise to marry could result from various legitimate reasons, such as family opposition, personal differences, or financial issues. Separating genuine reasons for a relationship breakdown from deceitful intent requires a nuanced understanding of human relationships and motivations, which can be challenging to demonstrate in court.
Gathering Evidence: Another significant hurdle is gathering sufficient evidence to support allegations made under Section 69. In most cases, the evidence is circumstantial, relying heavily on text messages, emails, call recordings, and witness testimonies. These forms of evidence can indicate that a relationship existed and that marriage was discussed, but they may not conclusively prove that the promise to marry was made deceitfully from the beginning. Additionally, proving that sexual intercourse occurred solely based on a false promise of marriage can be incredibly challenging. The subjective nature of personal relationships means that what one party perceives as a deceitful promise, the other may view as a genuine intention that changed over time.
Legal and Practical Implications: From a legal standpoint, the subjective nature of proving intent makes it difficult to build a watertight case. Lawyers and judges must investigate the grey areas of intent and personal motivation, which are not always clear-cut. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent verdicts and potential miscarriages of justice. Practically, law enforcement officials are concerned about the potential for misuse of this provision. There is a risk that individuals may use Section 69 to seek revenge or exert pressure on their partners following a breakup, leading to false accusations and wrongful arrests. This misuse can strain the resources of the legal system, leading to prolonged legal battles and affecting the lives of those involved.
Impact on Relationships: The implications of Section 69 extend beyond the courtroom and into the realm of personal relationships. The fear of being falsely accused and facing severe legal consequences may deter individuals from entering into relationships or engaging in intimate relationships without formal commitments. This could lead to an atmosphere of mistrust and caution, where the natural progression of relationships is hampered by legal fears. Such an environment may negatively impact the social fabric, altering how individuals perceive and engage in romantic relationships.

While Section 69 aims to protect individuals from deceitful practices in relationships, it poses significant challenges for law enforcement. Proving deceitful intent, gathering sufficient evidence, investigating legal complexities, and understanding the broader social implications are critical issues that need careful consideration to ensure the law serves its intended purpose without causing undue harm.

Historical Context

Evolution of Laws Related to Consent and Deception in Relationships: The evolution of laws addressing consent and deception in relationships reflects changing societal values and the need to protect individuals from exploitation and harm. Historically, legal systems often struggled to adequately address issues of consent, particularly in the context of intimate relationships where promises and deceit could blur lines.

In many traditional legal systems, the concept of consent was tied closely to marriage and property rights. Women, in particular, were often seen as needing protection from deceitful men who might promise marriage to gain sexual access. This patriarchal view influenced early laws, which focused on safeguarding a woman’s honour and family’s reputation.

As legal frameworks modernized, the focus shifted towards individual autonomy and the right to consent freely. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, introduced during British colonial rule, included provisions to address rape and sexual exploitation. However, it lacked specific measures to address deceit in promises of marriage.

Notable Cases Tried Under Section 90 of IPC: Section 90 of the IPC dealt with consent obtained through “misconception of fact,” which became the legal basis for prosecuting deceitful promises of marriage. Under this section, if a woman consented to sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage, it could be argued that her consent was invalid due to the misconception.

Several notable cases have been tried under Section 90, highlighting the complexities involved in proving deceit and intent:

Bhupinder Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2008): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that a false promise of marriage could amount to rape if it was established that the man never intended to marry the woman and only deceived her to gain sexual access. The court emphasized the importance of intent and the need for clear evidence to prove deceit.
Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013): The Supreme Court ruled that a mere breach of promise to marry, without malicious intent at the inception of the relationship, would not constitute rape. The court distinguished between a failed relationship and a fraudulent promise, underscoring that not all broken promises could be deemed criminal.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019): The court further clarified that if a man genuinely intended to marry a woman but later could not fulfil the promise due to unforeseen circumstances, it would not amount to rape. The case highlighted the need for distinguishing genuine intent from deceitful promises.

These cases illustrate the judicial struggle to balance the protection of individuals from exploitation while avoiding criminalizing normal relationship breakdowns. The introduction of Section 69 in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) aims to provide a more specific legal framework for addressing deceit in promises of marriage. However, it also raises concerns about potential misuse and the challenges of proving intent and deceit.

In summary, the historical context of laws related to consent and deception in relationships reveals an ongoing effort to protect individuals while recognizing the complexities of human relationships. The evolution from traditional patriarchal views to modern legal frameworks reflects broader societal changes, emphasizing individual autonomy and the need for nuanced legal approaches.

Lawyers’ Concerns about the Implications of Section 69

Ambiguity and Misinterpretation: One of the main concerns among legal experts is the potential uncertainty in the language of Section 69, which could lead to misinterpretation and misuse. The provision criminalizes obtaining consent for sexual intercourse through deceitful means, such as false promises of marriage. However, distinguishing between an intentionally deceitful promise and a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances poses a significant challenge. This ambiguity could result in a flood of cases based on subjective interpretations of intent, leading to legal uncertainties and potential misuse of the law.

Impact on Relationships: Lawyers also express concern that Section 69 could disproportionately impact men in consensual relationships where promises of marriage were made but not kept due to various reasons. The provision might be used as a tool for harassment, particularly in cases where relationships sour, and one party seeks retribution by claiming deceitful intent. This potential for misuse could lead to a chilling effect on relationships and hinder genuine expressions of commitment.

Need for Clear Guidelines: Legal experts advocate for clearer guidelines and more precise definitions within Section 69 to ensure that the law is applied fairly and justly. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra suggests that without clear parameters, the provision might result in legal battles over the interpretation of what constitutes “deceitful means,” leading to prolonged litigation and potential miscarriages of justice.

In summary, while Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita aims to address sexual exploitation through deceit, it raises significant concerns among legal experts regarding its potential for misuse and the challenges in proving deceitful intent. Clear guidelines and strong evidence standards are essential to ensure the fair and just application of this provision.

Law Enforcement’s Viewpoint

Challenges Faced by Police in Enforcing Section 69

Complexity of Proving Deceit: One of the primary challenges law enforcement officers face is proving deceitful intent behind promises of marriage. This provision requires the police to demonstrate that the accused made a false promise of marriage with no intention of fulfilling it. The subjective nature of intent makes it difficult for officers to gather sufficient evidence that convincingly shows that the promise was deceitful from the outset.
Resource and Training Limitations: Investigating cases under Section 69 requires specialized skills and resources. Law enforcement agencies often lack adequate training to handle such sensitive and complex cases effectively. Officers need to understand the all shades of relationship dynamics and the legal definitions of consent and deceit, which might not be covered extensively in their standard training programs.
Balancing Victim Support and Due Process: Police officers must strike a delicate balance between supporting alleged victims and ensuring due process for the accused. This dual responsibility can be challenging, especially in cases involving personal relationships where emotions run high. Officers must avoid bias and ensure that both parties receive fair treatment during the investigation.

Issues with Gathering Credible Evidence

Reliance on Personal Testimonies: Gathering credible evidence in cases under Section 69 heavily relies on personal testimonies from the parties involved. These testimonies can be conflicting and influenced by personal biases, making it challenging to establish a clear and objective narrative. The subjective nature of personal interactions adds to the complexity of obtaining reliable evidence.
Digital Evidence Collection: In many cases, digital communications such as text messages, emails, and social media interactions play a crucial role in establishing the context and content of the promises made. However, collecting and verifying digital evidence can be difficult. Issues such as data privacy, encryption, and the authenticity of digital communications present significant hurdles for law enforcement agencies.
Corroborating Evidence: To build a strong case, police officers need to corroborate personal testimonies with additional evidence such as witness statements, physical evidence, and other relevant documents. However, finding corroborative evidence in cases involving personal relationships can be challenging. Often, these interactions occur in private settings with few, or not having any witnesses. There are no physical traces of a promise to marry, making it hard for law enforcement to substantiate claims. The evidence is often circumstantial and relies on the subjective experiences of the individuals involved.
Legal Standards of Proof: Meeting the legal standards of proof required for criminal prosecution is another significant challenge. Law enforcement must ensure that the evidence collected meets the criteria for admissibility in court and is strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Potential for False Allegations: The broad scope of Section 69 opens the door for potential misuse, where individuals might use the provision to settle personal scores or exert pressure. This makes it essential for police to conduct thorough investigations to differentiate between genuine cases and those filed with malicious intent. Ensuring that accusations are not driven by ulterior motives requires scrutiny and balanced judgment.
Judicial Coordination: Effective enforcement of Section 69 requires close coordination between police and judicial authorities. Law enforcement must ensure that the evidence gathered meets the standards required for prosecution, which can be a significant hurdle. The need for credible, verifiable evidence places a high burden on the police to conduct meticulous investigations and collaborate closely with legal experts.

These challenges highlight the complexities law enforcement faces in applying Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. Balancing the need to protect individuals from genuine deceit while preventing misuse of the law is a delicate task that requires careful consideration and robust procedural safeguards.

Potential for Misuse and Scenarios Where Section 69 Could Be Misapplied

Personal Vendettas: Section 69 could be misused in cases where individuals seek to settle personal scores. In relationships that end on bad terms, one party might falsely accuse the other of deceit regarding a promise to marry. This could be used as a tool for revenge or to exert pressure, exploiting the legal system to cause harm.
Coercion and Extortion: There is a risk that Section 69 could be used to coerce or extort men in relationships. Accusations of false promises to marry can be leveraged to extract financial settlements or force individuals into unwanted marriages. This misuse undermines the law’s intention to protect genuine victims of deceit.
False Allegations in Breakups: When relationships end, emotions can run high, leading to false allegations under Section 69. The subjective nature of intent and the lack of concrete evidence can make it difficult to distinguish between genuine cases of deceit and false claims made from meanness. This can result in unwarranted legal actions and arrests based on unsubstantiated accusations.

Impact on Men’s Lives and Reputations

Social Stigma: Men accused under Section 69 face significant social stigma. Even if the allegations are false, the mere accusation can tarnish reputations, leading to social ostracism and damaged personal and professional relationships. The stigma associated with being accused of deceit in a relationship can have long-lasting effects on an individual’s social standing.
Legal and Financial Burden: Defending oneself against accusations under Section 69 can be a lengthy and costly process. Legal battles can drain financial resources and time, affecting an individual’s career and livelihood. The stress of prolonged legal proceedings can also take a toll on mental health and overall well-being.
Professional Consequences: Accusations of deceit and false promises to marry can have severe professional repercussions. Individuals in certain professions, especially those requiring a clean record, might face job loss or difficulties in career advancement. The professional fallout from such accusations can be devastating, irrespective of the case’s outcome.
Emotional and Psychological Impact: The emotional and psychological impact of being falsely accused under Section 69 can be profound. The stress, anxiety, and trauma associated with legal battles and social stigma can lead to mental health issues, including depression and anxiety disorders. The personal strain can also affect family relationships and overall quality of life.

These potential misuses and impacts underscore the need for careful implementation and scrutiny of Section 69 to prevent unjust outcomes and ensure that the law serves its intended purpose of protecting genuine victims of deceit in relationships.

Public Reaction

Opinions from Individuals in Relationships: The introduction of Section 69 has sparked diverse reactions among the public, especially those currently in relationships. Many individuals have expressed significant concern over the potential implications of this law. For instance, people fear that normal relationship dynamics could be misinterpreted and weaponized under the new provision. As one woman from Delhi, mentioned, “A woman knows while consenting to sexual intercourse that there is a possibility that the relationship might fall apart. If two people want to be together, they don’t even need marriage or a promise of marriage.”

Another man from Delhi, shared his apprehensions: “What if due to some of my family reasons, I cannot marry her? Or she cannot marry me? We cannot make it work, and then she files a complaint against me. How will I save myself?” These sentiments reflect a broader anxiety that the law could be misused to target men unfairly when relationships end for legitimate reasons.

General Sentiment and Fear of the New Law: The general sentiment towards Section 69 of the BNS is one of caution and fear. Many people, especially men, are worried about the possibility of being accused of deceit if their relationships do not culminate in marriage. The fear is not only about legal repercussions but also about the social and professional fallout that could result from such accusations. The possibility of false allegations leading to severe consequences has created an atmosphere of apprehension among those in relationships.

Furthermore, law enforcement officials have highlighted the difficulty in distinguishing between genuine cases of deceit and false claims. This ambiguity adds to the public’s concern, as it could lead to innocent individuals being caught up in legal battles based on circumstantial evidence.

Overall, the introduction of Section 69 has led to widespread fear and uncertainty, with many questioning the law’s potential for misuse and its impact on personal relationships and social dynamics. The public’s reaction underscores the need for clear guidelines and safeguards to prevent the law from being exploited and to ensure that it achieves its intended purpose of protecting genuine victims of deceit.

Legal Recourse and Remedies

Options Available for Those Accused Under Section 69: Individuals accused under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) have several legal avenues to pursue in their defence. Given the severity of the potential penalties, it is crucial for the accused to be aware of their rights and the legal remedies available to them.

Legal Representation: The first and most crucial step for anyone accused under Section 69 is to seek competent legal representation. A knowledgeable lawyer can help navigate the complexities of the law, ensure that the accused’s rights are protected, and provide strategic advice on how to build a strong defence.
Legal Aid Services: Legal aid services are available for those who cannot afford a private attorney. These services can provide representation and ensure access to justice for all individuals, regardless of their financial situation.
Bail Applications: Accused individuals can apply for bail to avoid prolonged detention during the trial process. Bail applications can be made to the relevant court, and a lawyer can argue for the release of the accused on the grounds of insufficient evidence, the accused’s ties to the community, and the absence of flight risk. Courts typically consider the nature of the offence, the evidence presented, and the likelihood of the accused appearing for future court dates when deciding on bail.
Challenging the Evidence: The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused has the right to challenge the evidence presented against them. This can include cross-examining witnesses, disputing the authenticity of documents, and presenting counter-evidence.

Gathering evidence that disproves the alleged deceit or false promise of marriage is essential. This may involve providing communication records, witness testimonies, and other relevant documents that support the accused’s version of events.

Filing for Quashing of FIR: In some cases, the accused can file a petition for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) if it is believed that the allegations are baseless or malicious. High courts have the authority to quash FIRs if they find that the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offense or is an abuse of the legal process. This legal remedy is particularly useful in cases where there is a lack of prima facie evidence or where the complaint appears to be filed with ulterior motives.
The Role of the Judiciary in Ensuring Fair Trials: The judiciary plays a critical role in upholding the principles of justice and ensuring that trials under Section 69 of the BNS are fair and unbiased. Several mechanisms and judicial practices are in place to protect the rights of the accused and ensure a just legal process.

Presumption of Innocence: One of the fundamental principles of criminal law is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The judiciary is responsible for ensuring that this principle is upheld and that the accused is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. Judges must evaluate the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence impartially and without prejudice.
Right to a Fair Hearing: The judiciary must ensure that the accused receives a fair hearing, which includes the right to be heard, the right to present evidence, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. Courts must conduct trials in a manner that respects the due process of law, providing both parties an equal opportunity to present their case.
Judicial Oversight of Police Actions: The judiciary also oversees the actions of law enforcement to prevent arbitrary or unlawful detentions. Accused individuals have the right to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention, and the courts can intervene if due process is not followed. This oversight ensures that the police do not misuse their powers and that arrests are made based on credible evidence.
Protection Against Malicious Prosecution: The judiciary has the authority to protect individuals from malicious prosecution. If it is found that a case has been filed with malice or without sufficient grounds, the court can dismiss the charges and provide relief to the accused. This protection is crucial in preventing the misuse of Section 69 to settle personal scores or harass individuals.
Speedy Trial: Ensuring a speedy trial is another critical role of the judiciary. Prolonged legal battles can cause undue stress and hardship to the accused. Courts are responsible for expediting trials and minimizing unnecessary delays. This includes setting reasonable timelines for the submission of evidence, the examination of witnesses, and the delivery of judgments.

The legal system provides several remedies and protections for individuals accused under Section 69 of the BNS. By seeking legal representation, challenging the evidence, and utilizing judicial oversight, the accused can ensure that their rights are safeguarded and that they receive a fair trial. The judiciary’s role is paramount in maintaining the balance between enforcing the law and protecting individual rights.

Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces significant changes in addressing deceit in relationships, but it also raises numerous concerns. Legal experts are worried about proving intent to deceive, which could lead to wrongful accusations and misuse of the law. Law enforcement faces challenges in gathering credible evidence, complicating the enforcement process. Public reaction is mixed, with fears of potential harassment and damage to reputations, especially for men.

Despite these concerns, legal recourse and remedies are available for those accused, emphasizing the need for fair trials and competent legal representation. The judiciary plays a crucial role in balancing the enforcement of this law with the protection of individual rights. Overall, Section 69 presents a complex legal scenario that requires careful consideration to ensure justice is served while preventing misuse.