Section 69 of BNS: Judicial Interpretations & Challenges

Table of contents

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), introduced as a replacement for the Indian Penal Code (IPC), marks a significant shift in India’s legal framework. Among the most debated provisions is Section 69, which targets sexual relations based on false promises of marriage or employment. While it aims to address deceitful behavior, questions remain about its redundancy and applicability, given the overlap with existing rape laws.

About Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Standalone Offence: Section 69 specifically criminalises sexual intercourse induced by false promises of marriage, a concept not explicitly addressed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Definition of the Offence: The provision penalises deceitful sexual relations where the accused never intended to marry.
Punishment: Offenders under Section 69 can face up to 10 years imprisonment, a fine, or both, but this offence is not classified as rape.
Deceitful Means: The section includes deceitful actions like false marriage or job promises and concealing true identity to induce a sexual relationship.

Judicial Interpretations on False Promises of Marriage

Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019): A breach of promise only amounts to rape if the accused never intended to marry from the start.
Rajnish Singh v. State of U.P. (2025): The court quashed the case, emphasising that long-term consensual relationships shouldn’t be criminalised.
Abhishek Arjariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025): The court pointed out that the relationship was consensual and that the woman was married, making it more complicated to apply Section 69.

Challenges Posed by Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Legal Overlap: Section 69 appears redundant as deceit-based consent is already covered under Section 63 (rape) through “misconception of fact.”
No Non-Obstante Clause: Absence of an overriding clause creates ambiguity in its application, risking conflict with existing provisions like Section 63.
Article 14 Concerns: Overlapping language and lack of clarity can result in unequal treatment, violating the right to equality under the Constitution.
Judicial Ambiguity: A vague and unclear distinction between deceit and non-consent may easily lead to inconsistent court rulings in legal cases.
Potential for Misuse: Without safeguards, the provision may be misused for false or malicious complaints, overburdening courts and harming the innocent.

Constitutional Backdrop

Article 21: Guarantees personal dignity and bodily autonomy, core to consent in sexual relations.
Article 14: Any vague or overlapping law like Section 69 can be challenged for violating the right to equality and non-arbitrariness.

Gender Justice Lens

Protective Intent: Section 69 protects women from exploitation in relationships.
Risk of Infantilization: Overcriminalisation may undermine women’s agency by presuming that they cannot assess relational risks.

Ethical Dilemmas

Deontological Ethics: Deceiving someone into a sexual relationship violates their autonomy and right to informed consent.
Utilitarian Concerns: Misuse of the law harms legal credibility, overburdens courts, and may damage genuine cases.

Comparative Jurisprudence

United Kingdom: Recognises deceit-induced consent as a separate offence under Sexual Offences Act.
Canada: In R v. Hutchinson (2014), consent was invalidated because of deception (tampering with contraception).
South Africa: Acknowledges “rape by fraud” but limits it with safeguards to avoid misuse and preserve judicial integrity.

Way Forward

Define Clear Scope: Limit Section 69 to cases involving deceit that do not meet the threshold of rape under Section 63 to avoid overlap.
Add Non-Obstante Clause: Ensure Section 69 takes precedence in relevant cases, preventing legal conflict and enhancing clarity.
Judicial & Police Guidelines: Develop structured protocols to assess intent, consent, and prevent misuse through uniform interpretation.
Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry: Require a fact-checking inquiry before FIRs to filter out frivolous or malicious complaints.
Ensure Constitutional Consistency: Amend Section 69 to align with Article 14, promoting equal treatment and avoiding redundancy.

Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is a welcome move toward safeguarding consent and dignity, but its current form risks legal overlap, misuse, and constitutional vagueness. To ensure effective and equitable justice, the provision must be clearly scoped, legally harmonised, and procedurally safeguarded.

Reference: The Hindu

PMF IAS Pathfinder for Mains – Question 174

Q. A law that grants arbitrary powers to the State is likely to violate the right to equality. In this context, examine the constitutional validity of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in light of Article 14 of the Constitution. (150 Words) (10 Marks)

Approach

Introduction: Write a brief overview of Article 14 and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Body: Evaluate the constitutional validity of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in relation to Article 14 of the Constitution.
Conclusion: In conclusion, emphasize the significant importance of reform.