Fri Dec 13 02:56:18 UTC 2024: ## New Indian Law Criminalizing “Deceptive Sex” Sparks Debate
**New Delhi, December 13, 2024** – Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), India’s new criminal code, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means like false promises of marriage, is generating significant controversy. While supporters hail it as a protection for women in a patriarchal society, critics argue it is inherently gender biased and discriminatory.
The law, replacing a provision in the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), prescribes up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine for those found guilty. Several cases are already utilizing Section 69, leading to ongoing legal and public discourse. Recent court rulings have shown a divergence in interpretation, with some granting bail to accused men while others uphold the charges. The Gauhati and Gujarat High Courts, for instance, have highlighted the difficulty in proving a false promise to marry, emphasizing that a simple promise, without further evidence of deception, is insufficient for conviction. Conversely, the Kerala High Court recently refused to quash proceedings against a priest accused under this section.
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data reveals that, between 2016 and 2022, an average of 39.45% of reported rape cases involved false promises of marriage. However, the lack of conviction rate data specifically for these cases hinders a complete analysis of the law’s impact.
Concerns have been raised about the law’s potential to criminalize long-term consensual relationships that later sour and its subjective nature in determining intent. A Rajya Sabha report warned against reinforcing gender stereotypes and noted the difficulty in proving deceitful intent. Activist Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj launched a petition with over 60,000 signatures calling for the repeal of Section 69, arguing it presumes women lack agency in sexual decisions and overlooks the possibility of women using similar tactics. A public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Kerala High Court also challenges the law’s constitutionality, citing concerns about its impact on live-in relationships, LGBTQ+ individuals, and potential violation of the right to privacy.
Legal experts remain divided. While some see Section 69 as closing loopholes in the previous law and addressing psychological coercion, others believe it is overly broad and potentially misused. The debate continues as courts grapple with interpreting the new legislation and its implications for individual rights and gender equality.
First Piper 