Section 69 of the BNS is Redundant

Cases of rape on the premise of a false promise of marriage have been a contentious issue for long. It is often argued that even consensual physical relationships are later criminalised under rape charges.

Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

• New Provision: There was an expectation that the Central government would remove such provisions that undermine a woman’s agency. However, instead of repealing it, it introduced a new provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
• Standalone Offence: Section 69 exclusively addresses sexual intercourse based on false promise of marriage.  Such a specific offence did not exist under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Definition: Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) states that sexual intercourse through “deceitful means” or a false promise to marry, without the intent to fulfil it, shall be punishable.  
  • Such intercourse, not amounting to rape, can lead to imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine.
• Deceitful Means: The law explains that “deceitful means” includes false inducements such as a promise of employment, promotion, or marriage by suppressing identity.
  • This broadens the ambit of deceit, yet distinguishes such acts from the graver offence of rape.
• Reduced Punishment: This section lowers the punishment compared to the offence of rape under Section 63 BNS (previously Section 375 IPC).  This implies a downgrading of the gravity of such cases in legal terms.
• Legal Scope: The Supreme Court has restricted the scope of such cases by setting strict legal conditions.  The court has stressed the intention of the accused at the time of making the promise.

Judicial Precedents

• Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019): The Court ruled that if the accused intended to marry initially but later failed due to unforeseen reasons, it is not rape.
  • Only if there was no intention to marry from the outset, can it be prosecuted as rape on false promise.
• Rajnish Singh Soni v. State of U.P. (2025): If a woman knowingly continues a physical relationship over years, it cannot be solely attributed to a false promise of marriage.
  • In this case, a 15-year relationship was deemed consensual; the FIR was quashed due to lack of deceit.
• Abhishek Arjariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025): If the prosecutrix is already married at the time of the physical relationship, her consent cannot be claimed as mistaken.  
  • In such cases, the courts have held that the false promise does not invalidate consent under misconception of fact.

Challenges Associated with Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

• No alteration: Section 69 stands as an independent offence without altering the core definitions of rape and consent. Section 63 defines rape under seven descriptions, six of which concern vitiated consent.
• Misconception of Fact: Under Section 28, consent is vitiated if obtained under fear of injury, misconception of fact, intoxication, unsoundness of mind, or if the person is below 12 years of age. 
  • Hence, a false promise of marriage is already covered as “misconception of fact” within this provision.
• Pari Materia: The BNS provisions on rape and consent are pari materia (substantially similar) to those in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  Thus, sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage remains punishable as rape, based on existing interpretations.
• Legal Conflict: If the offence already falls under the definition of rape, creating a lesser offence under Section 69 creates a conflict. Such overlap renders Section 69 legally redundant, unless rape provisions explicitly exclude these cases.
• Lack of Non-Obstante Clause: Section 69 does not include a non-obstante clause—a legislative tool that gives overriding effect. In its absence, Section 63 (rape) will take precedence, making Section 69 vulnerable to legal challenge.
• Violation of Article 14 : Without a clear legal distinction or exemption from the rape definition, Section 69 may violate Article 14 of the Constitution. This could make the provision unconstitutional for failing the test of equal treatment under law.

Way Forward

• Guiding Framework: Given that courts are already quashing FIRs based on established judicial tests, a legal precedent exists.  These include examining the intention, duration of relationship, and consensual conduct.
• Avoiding Unnecessary Prosecution: The police should exercise discretion and conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing charge sheets.  This would protect innocent individuals from unwarranted legal hardship and reduce the burden on constitutional courts.

Conclusion

While Section 69 aims to address genuine cases of deceit, it must be legally distinct and not undermine existing laws on rape. Clarity in legislative drafting and judicial guidance is essential for protecting rights without causing legal confusion.