Answer

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promises of marriage, employment, or promotion. While aiming to protect women from exploitation, this provision has raised concerns regarding its alignment with existing laws on consent and rape.

Legal Issues with Section 69 of the BNS

• Ambiguity in Defining ‘Deceitful Means’: The phrase “deceitful means” in Section 69 is vague and can lead to varied interpretations, creating legal uncertainty.
• Challenges in Proving Lack of Intent: Proving that the accused had no intent to honor a promise of marriage is subjective, complicating legal proceedings.
  For example: In cases where the accused claims intention to fulfill the promise, it becomes difficult to prove fraud in court.
• Disproportionate Punishment: The law prescribes severe penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment, which may not align with other similar offenses.
• Lack of Safeguards Against False Allegations: The absence of procedural safeguards in Section 69 increases the risk of false allegations, potentially leading to wrongful legal actions and undermining the presumption of innocence.​

Constitutional Issues with Section 69 of the BNS

• Gender-Specific Application: Section 69 is gender-specific, targeting men for deceit against women, which could violate the principle of equality under the Constitution.
• Reinforcement of Gender Stereotypes: By assuming that women are passive receivers of promises, Section 69 may reinforce outdated gender norms.
  For example: The law may imply that women are incapable of making independent decisions regarding their sexual relationships.
• Potential for Arbitrary Enforcement: Section lacks clear standards, leading to the potential for arbitrary enforcement and inconsistent application.
• Conflict with Fundamental Rights: Critics argue that Section 69 infringes upon fundamental rights like personal liberty and equality, given the severity of punishment without clear standards.
  For example: The Indian Constitution guarantees equal protection and justice, which may be compromised by the provision’s broad language.
• Lack of Safeguards Against Misuse: Section 69 lacks procedural safeguards, increasing the risk of misuse and undermining justice.

Need for Revision of Section 69

• Clarification of ‘Deceitful Means’: The definition of “deceitful means” needs to be clearly outlined to prevent misinterpretation and ensure consistency.
• Inclusion of All Genders: To uphold equality, Section 69 should be amended to apply to all genders, ensuring fairness for male victims.
• Implementation of Safeguards: Section 69 should include procedural safeguards, such as mandatory investigation and judicial oversight, to prevent misuse.
  For example: Judicial review could help ensure that accusations of deceit are thoroughly examined before penalties are imposed.
• Mandatory Data Transparency: Requiring publication of annual conviction rates and case dispositions would promote accountability.

Section 69 of the BNS aims to combat sexual exploitation but presents legal and constitutional challenges. A revision of the provision is essential to ensure clarity, fairness, and equality in its application, ensuring it effectively addresses issues of consent and rape without infringing on constitutional rights.