When Love Becomes Law: Unpacking Section 69 and the Myth of Modern Marriage -

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), enacted in 2023 to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introduced several new provisions to modernize India’s criminal law. Among the most debated is Section 69, which criminalizes sexual intercourse procured through deceitful means, including false promises of marriage. The inclusion of this section has sparked a nationwide conversation around the intersection of personal relationships, consent, and criminal liability.

What Does Section 69 State?

Section 69 of the BNS penalizes sexual intercourse by a man with a woman under circumstances where the woman’s consent is obtained through deception. This includes, but is not limited to:

A false promise to marry without any genuine intention to fulfill it;
False promises of employment or promotion;
Suppression of identity or impersonation with the intent to mislead;
Any other act intended to deceive a woman into consenting to sexual activity.

The punishment prescribed under this section is imprisonment for up to 10 years and may also include a fine. This provision is distinct from rape laws and applies even when the act does not legally constitute rape under BNS Section 63.

The Legal Philosophy Behind the Provision

At the heart of Section 69 lies the idea that consent obtained by deception is not valid consent. Indian courts have long recognized that a promise to marry, made without intention to fulfill it, could invalidate consent. The BNS now codifies this principle to provide a clearer statutory framework.

This provision seeks to address situations where women are exploited emotionally and physically, often under the false belief that the relationship is headed toward marriage. In doing so, it aims to hold accountable those who deliberately manipulate such expectations for sexual gratification.

Concerns and Criticisms

Despite its intent to safeguard vulnerable individuals, Section 69 has drawn criticism from legal scholars, civil rights activists, and even former judges. The main concerns include:

1. Risk of Misuse

Critics argue that the provision could be misused by individuals to criminalize failed relationships. Not all broken promises are made in bad faith; intentions can change over time. The fear is that consensual relationships that end without marriage could retrospectively be painted as exploitative, leading to false or vindictive cases.

2. Ambiguity in Proving Intent

A critical element of prosecution under Section 69 is establishing that the accused had no intention of marrying at the time the promise was made. Proving this state of mind is inherently complex and subjective. In the absence of clear evidence, courts may face challenges in distinguishing between genuine romantic intentions and manipulative deceit.

3. Impact on Personal Autonomy

Some critics view the provision as potentially intrusive into private affairs, suggesting it places too much legal scrutiny on personal relationships. It may discourage individuals from entering into romantic engagements or delay expressions of commitment, fearing possible legal consequences if things don’t work out.

Support for the Provision

On the other hand, supporters of Section 69 argue that it addresses a very real and systemic problem the exploitation of women under the guise of long-term commitment. In many cases, the emotional, social, and reputational damage caused by such deceit is profound, especially in a society where premarital relationships are still stigmatized.

They also argue that codifying this principle gives legal recognition to the idea of meaningful consent, moving beyond the binary of rape versus non-rape. It affirms that consent must be informed and voluntary, not the product of manipulation or false promises.

Judicial Interpretation and Future Implications

As Section 69 is still new, its interpretation will evolve through judicial decisions. Courts will have to carefully balance protecting victims of exploitation while guarding against frivolous or malicious prosecutions. It is likely that the judiciary will place emphasis on contemporaneous evidence such as messages, witness testimonies, and the behavior of the parties to assess whether deception existed from the outset.

There is also scope for judicial safeguards, such as requiring a preliminary inquiry or higher evidentiary threshold before allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita represents a bold and sensitive attempt to address the growing concern around consent, coercion, and deception in intimate relationships. While its potential for misuse cannot be ignored, its existence reflects a maturing legal understanding of consent one that recognizes emotional manipulation as a form of violation.

To ensure fairness, it will be crucial for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to apply the provision cautiously, keeping in mind the thin line between a false promise and a failed relationship. Only then can the law serve its purpose to protect the innocent, punish the guilty, and uphold the dignity of consent in all its dimensions.

Sources:

More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/