Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
Contents
Introduction of Section 69 BNS (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita):
Section 69 bns of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, referred to as “Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.,” has been a subject of controversy and debate due to its implications on consent, gender equality, and fundamental rights. Despite its intended purpose, the provision has sparked concerns regarding its constitutionality, potential for misuse, and infringement upon individual liberties.
Problem with the Law:
The law, ostensibly aimed at protecting individuals from sexual exploitation, is riddled with constitutional flaws and gender biases. By criminalizing sexual intercourse based on false promises of marriage or employment, the provision inherently assumes that only men can deceive women in such matters, ignoring the agency and capacity of women to exert similar influence. This gendered presumption not only perpetuates stereotypes but also undermines the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.
Moreover, Section 69 bns fails to establish clear parameters for determining the duration or validity of a promise, leaving individuals vulnerable to arbitrary accusations and legal persecution. The absence of safeguards against misuse, coupled with severe penalties including imprisonment and fines, exacerbates the risk of false allegations and wrongful convictions.
Rampant Misuse of Rape on False Promise of Marriage Clause Ignored While Bringing a New Law of Section 69 BNS:
Instances of misuse and misinterpretation of similar provisions in the past highlight the urgent need for caution and deliberation in introducing new legislation. Despite documented cases of abuse and judicial skipticism towards applying rape laws to regulate consensual relationships, policymakers have overlooked these concerns in their haste to address perceived injustices.
Recent judicial pronouncements, such as the Orissa High Court’s call for revaluation and the Ahmedabad sessions court’s acquittal, underscore the inadequacies and potential injustices perpetuated by Section 69 bns. From cases involving extramarital affairs to allegations against minors, the provision’s indiscriminate application poses a grave threat to individual liberties and due process.
Why This Law Should Be Repealed:
The parallels drawn between Section 69 bns and the notorious Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, known for its rampant misuse and detrimental impact on families, underscore the urgent need for repeal. Like its predecessor, Section 69 bns lacks the necessary safeguards and oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse and safeguard innocent individuals from undue harassment and legal persecution.
To ensure justice and protect individual liberties, policymakers must engage in thorough consultations with stakeholders and legal experts before enacting or amending legislation. In its current form, Section 69 bns stands as a testament to the adage that a poorly conceived law can do more harm than good, warranting its immediate repeal and replacement with a more equitable and robust framework.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Section 69 bns of the Indian Penal Code represents a glaring example of legislative overreach and gender bias, perpetuating stereotypes and injustices in the guise of protecting individuals from exploitation. As evidenced by its flawed implementation and susceptibility to misuse, the provision undermines fundamental rights and principles of justice, necessitating urgent action to repeal and rectify its shortcomings. Only through thoughtful deliberation and reform can the Indian legal system uphold its commitment to equality, fairness, and individual liberties.
One Comment
Pingback: