Open Access Research Article
LEGAL CHALLENGES AND JUDICIAL RESPONSES A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL FRAMEWORKS: FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE PROVISIONS IN INDIAN PENAL CODE AND BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
Published Paper
Article Details
LEGAL CHALLENGES AND JUDICIAL RESPONSES A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL
FRAMEWORKS: FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE PROVISIONS IN INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
AUTHORED BY - NAZIYA
SALIM KHAN
Abstract :
The legal landscape surrounding the
false promise of marriage provisions within the Indian legal system has been a
subject of considerable scrutiny and debate. This research paper undertakes a
comprehensive comparative analysis of the legal frameworks governing such
provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
shedding light on their historical evolution, legislative intent, judicial
interpretations, and practical implications. The notion of a promise of
marriage, followed by its breach, has long been recognized as a grave social
injustice, particularly in patriarchal societies where a woman’s honor and
future prospects are intricately tied to her marital status. To address such
instances of deceit and betrayal, both the IPC and BNS have provisions aimed at
penalizing individuals who make false promises of marriage with the intention
to deceive and exploit. By examining the historical context in which these
provisions were enacted and the legislative intent behind them, this paper
seeks to elucidate the underlying principles and objectives guiding their
implementation. It explores how societal attitudes towards marriage, gender
roles, and the protection of vulnerable individuals have influenced the
formulation and interpretation of these legal provisions over time.
Furthermore, through a meticulous analysis of relevant case law and judicial
decisions, this study delves into the judicial responses to cases involving
false promises of marriage, highlighting the various legal doctrines,
principles, and precedents that have shaped the courts’ approach to
adjudicating such matters. It explores the nuances and complexities involved in
establishing the elements of deceit, intention, and reliance in proving the
commission of the offense, and examines the challenges faced by both
prosecutors and defendants in navigating these legal intricacies.
Moreover, the paper addresses the
socio-legal implications of the false promise of marriage provisions,
considering their impact on victims, perpetrators, and broader societal
perceptions of justice and accountability. It discusses the role of legal aid,
support services, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in addressing
the needs of affected parties and facilitating access to justice in cases of
matrimonial fraud. In conclusion, this comparative analysis offers valuable
insights for legal practitioners, policymakers, and scholars seeking to
understand and address the legal challenges surrounding false promises of
marriage within the Indian legal system. By critically evaluating the
strengths, weaknesses, and disparities between the IPC and BNS frameworks, this
paper aims to contribute to ongoing discussions on law reform, judicial
interpretation, and social justice in the context of matrimonial disputes.
Introduction
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was
created by looking at how laws worked in Britain. But instead of helping people
in India, it was made to control them. Over time, many parts of these laws have
become outdated and don’t really fit with how our society has changed. So, the
Indian government decided it’s time to make new laws that would better protect
everyone’s rights. They want these laws to be fairer and more modern. To do
this, they introduced three new bills in the Lok Sabha. These bills are called
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill 2023, Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita Bill
2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill 2023. The government says the old laws were
made to keep British rule strong and punish people, not to give them justice.
Now, they want to change that. They want the new laws to be about giving
everyone a fair chance and making sure nobody gets treated unfairly. So,
they’re working on these new bills to make things better for everyone in India.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is essentially a set of rules and regulations that
dictate what people in India can and cannot do. However, the origins of this
code trace back to a time when India was under British colonial rule. During
that period, the IPC was formulated not so much to protect the rights and interests
of Indian citizens but rather to exert control over them. Fast forward to
today, and India has undergone significant societal, cultural, and economic
transformations. As a result, many of the laws outlined in the IPC have become
outdated and no longer reflect the realities of contemporary Indian life.
Recognizing the need for legal reform to ensure fairness and justice for all,
the Indian government has taken steps to overhaul these outdated laws. This
effort includes the introduction of three new bills in the Lok Sabha: the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill 2023, Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita Bill
2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill 2023. These bills aim to modernize and
streamline India’s legal framework, replacing archaic laws with ones that are
more equitable and reflective of the needs of Indian society today. The
government acknowledges that the old laws were crafted with the intention of
maintaining British control and punishing dissent rather than upholding
justice. Now, however, there is a commitment to rectifying this imbalance and
ensuring that the legal system serves the interests of all Indian citizens
fairly. Through the introduction of these new bills, the government hopes to
usher in a new era of legal governance characterized by transparency,
accountability, and respect for human rights. In the subsequent discussion, we
will delve deeper into the specifics of one of these bills, the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS) of 2023, to better understand its potential implications and
benefits for Indian society. [1]
Need of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
The need for the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS) arises from the long-standing call for a major overhaul of
India’s criminal justice system. The current laws, which date back to the
colonial era, no longer adequately address the present dynamics and aspirations
of Indian society. Various committees, such as the Law Commission of India,
Bezbaruah Committee, Viswanathan Committee, Malimath Committee, and Madhav
Menon Committee, have consistently advocated for reforms to address this issue.
Confronting the colonial legacy is a key focus. The Union Home Minister has
emphasized the importance of removing colonial influences deeply ingrained in
laws like the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and the
Evidence Act. The goal is to replace these historical influences with a legal
framework that is distinctly Indian and better reflects current needs and
values. Another crucial aspect of reform involves incorporating decisions made
by the Supreme Court into the legal system. For example, the removal of Section
377, which criminalized homosexuality, illustrates how legal reforms respond to
changing societal attitudes and judicial interpretations. This ensures that
outdated or discriminatory provisions are corrected. Additionally, recognizing
the importance of adapting to evolving societal norms, there is a push to
introduce gender neutrality in specific provisions of the IPC. This adjustment
is essential for ensuring that the legal system promotes contemporary values of
gender equality. By eliminating gender-specific biases, the aim is to create a
legal framework that mirrors the diverse and evolving nature of Indian society.[2]
Provision for false promise to
marriage under IPC ( Indian penal code )
In the case of Ajeet v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal ruled that the claim of
a false promise of marriage leading to a physical relationship lacks merit, as
the relationship ultimately resulted in marriage solemnization. The circumstances
surrounding the case of Ajeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh unfold a narrative of
intertwined relationships, promises, and alleged deceit. Within this context,
the victim, identified as the daughter of the third respondent, was pursuing
her studies in banking in Lucknow, at the mature age of 25. Meanwhile, the
appellant, purportedly engaged in running IIT coaching classes in Delhi,
crossed paths with the victim, leading to the blossoming of affection between
them. Amidst the backdrop of their developing love, the appellant purportedly
made assurances of marriage to the victim. However, when the third respondent,
presumably acting on behalf of the victim, approached the appellant’s father
and brother with the proposal of marriage, it is reported that they rebuffed
the notion. In response to this apparent rejection, under what is described as
the persistent pressure from the victim, the appellant sought to solidify their
relationship by arranging for a certificate of marriage from Arya Samaj Mandir.
This act, as alleged by the third respondent, was perceived as an attempt to
further bind the victim to the appellant through legal documentation. The crux
of the matter lies in the accusation leveled by the third respondent, asserting
that the appellant engaged in a physical relationship with the victim under the
guise of a false promise of marriage. It is contended that the purported
marriage certificate was obtained as a coercive tactic, designed to manipulate
and pressure the victim into compliance. However, the narrative takes a somber
turn when it is revealed that the appellant, after leaving the victim at her
residence on April 22, 2015, failed to return to reclaim her. This abandonment
seemingly adds weight to the allegations of deception and betrayal. Subsequently,
in an attempt to seek recourse and clear his name, the appellant turned to the
High Court of Allahabad, seeking to quash the allegations against him.
Nevertheless, despite his efforts, the High Court declined to intervene,
leaving the accusations unresolved and casting a shadow over the appellant’s
actions. Thus, the case encapsulates a complex web of emotions, obligations,
and legal intricacies, raising pertinent questions about the nature of consent,
promises made, and the consequences of actions taken within the realm of
intimate relationships. [3]
The Indian Penal Code of 1860 does
not contain a specific provision that delineates the offense of engaging in
sexual intercourse through deceitful means. Rather, this legal framework
addresses such conduct through a combined application of two key provisions:
Section 375, which outlines the elements of rape, and Section 90, which
pertains to situations where consent is granted under circumstances involving
fear or misconceptions. Despite the absence of a singular definition for this
particular offense, the IPC’s comprehensive approach ensures that instances of
sexual misconduct involving deceit or coercion are appropriately addressed
within the legal framework of India. In
the case of Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2022), the Supreme
Court distinguished between two crucial concepts pertaining to promises of
marriage.
Firstly, a false promise to
marriage entails a deliberate intent by the promisor to deceive, knowing
full well that the promise will not be upheld. This type of promise is made with
the preconceived notion that it will not be honored. On the other hand, a
breach of promise involves a sincere intention initially, where the promisor
genuinely intends to fulfill the commitment made. However, circumstances may
arise that prevent the promise from being fulfilled despite the initial good
faith. For instance, if a man can demonstrate that he genuinely intended to
marry the woman before engaging in a sexual relationship with her, but later
encounters insurmountable obstacles preventing the marriage, such as unforeseen
legal or personal impediments, then it falls under the category of a breach of
promise. This distinction is crucial in legal matters concerning matrimonial
obligations and the consequences thereof.[4]
What is section 69 of BNS ( Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita)[5]
“Whoever, by deceitful means or
making by promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the
same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not
amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable
to fine.” [6]
“Explanation.––– “deceitful means”
shall include the false promise of employment[7] or
Promotion, inducement or marring
after suppressing identity '’[8]
Section 69 of BNS - Sexual
Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage
Section 69 of the BNS, found in the
part about crimes against women and children, sets out two types of wrongdoing
related to sex. It talks about having sex through deceitful methods and making
a fake promise to marry someone.
Deceitful Methods: The initial offense consists of
using dishonest tactics, like lying about a job, a promotion, or marriage, to
convince someone to have sex. If someone uses these methods, they could be
punished with up to ten years in prison.
False Marriage Promise: The second offense involves lying about marrying a
woman, knowing you won’t keep that promise, just to get her to agree to have
sex with you. This wrongdoing could also lead to up to ten years in prison.[9]
Challenges of section 69 of BNS
It’s hard to prove someone was being
dishonest. People who are accused of deceit or making false promises may find
it tough to prove their innocence because accusers might take advantage of this
difficulty and make untrue claims, which makes it hard for the accused person
to show they did nothing wrong.
Legal processes can become more
complicated and unfair when evidence is altered or made up, which can result in
unjust decisions.[10]
The contention arises from the
perceived unconstitutional nature of the law, as it infringes upon the
principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 14 guarantees every individual equality before the law and equal protection
of the laws within the territory of India, ensuring that no one is unfairly
discriminated against or deprived of their rights. Similarly, Article 15
prohibits discrimination solely on the grounds of religion, race, caste,
gender, or place of birth. However, the law in question operates under the
presumption that only men possess the agency to engage in deceitful practices,
such as making false promises of marriage, job opportunities, or promotions to
induce sexual relations. Consequently, it establishes a double standard where
men are held accountable for reneging on such promises in consensual sexual
relationships, while women are exempt from similar scrutiny. Furthermore, the
law fails to acknowledge the possibility of women wielding positions of authority
or power, enabling them to manipulate men into sexual activities through false
promises of career advancements. This inherent gender bias perpetuates
discriminatory practices and prejudices, undermining the foundational
principles of equality and fairness within the legal framework. As such, the
law’s discriminatory nature not only violates constitutional provisions but
also perpetuates systemic injustices against certain genders, warranting a
critical examination and potential revision to ensure equitable treatment for
all individuals under the law.
The legislation's Implication that
adult women lack agency over decisions concerning their own bodies and dignity
within sexual contexts is deeply concerning. By suggesting that women can be
influenced or manipulated into consenting to sexual activity solely through
promises of marriage, job opportunities, or promotions, the law perpetuates
outdated and harmful stereotypes. This perspective not only undermines the
autonomy and independence of women but also dismisses the importance of their
will and consent in matters of sexual engagement. Furthermore, by failing to
recognize women as capable decision-makers in sexual encounters, the law
overlooks the complex dynamics of consent and perpetuates a patriarchal
understanding of relationships and sexuality. It is crucial to acknowledge that
individuals, regardless of gender, have the right to make informed choices
about their bodies and sexual experiences. Therefore, it is imperative to
challenge and reconsider the provisions of the law to ensure that it aligns
with principles of gender equality, autonomy, and consent. The legislation’s
failure to delineate a specific timeframe within which a sexual relationship
between a man and a woman could be deemed as constituting a false promise of
marriage is a significant oversight. This lack of clarity creates a
wide-ranging scope wherein various types of relationships, ranging from
long-term affairs to casual premarital engagements, could potentially be
subject to accusations under this provision. Moreover, the inherent nature of
the law being both cognizable and non-bailable adds another layer of complexity
to the situation. Under such circumstances, a mere allegation from the woman,
without any corroborating evidence, can swiftly lead to the man’s arrest,
reflecting a concerning imbalance in the legal process. The law’s reliance on
the statement of the woman as sufficient evidence to initiate legal proceedings
further accentuates the potential for misuse and miscarriage of justice.
Despite these glaring vulnerabilities, the legislation notably lacks any
safeguards or provisions aimed at preventing such misuse.
Additionally, the severity of the
prescribed punishment, which includes a lengthy prison sentence of up to 10 years
and a substantial fine, exacerbates the stakes for those accused. Consequently,
individuals find themselves at risk of immediate arrest and prosecution,
irrespective of whether a promise was actually made or if there exists any
tangible evidence to substantiate such claims. This prevailing scenario draws
stark parallels to existing cases involving allegations of rape based on
purported false promises of marriage, wherein individuals have been detained
despite possessing compelling evidence refuting the alleged promise. Such
instances underscore the pressing need for comprehensive reforms within the
legal framework to address these inherent flaws and uphold the principles of
fairness, equity, and due process for all parties involved.[11]
Conclusion
The misuse of IPC 498A has been seen
in many court cases, from high courts to the Supreme Court of India. This
misuse has harmed countless families, leading to unfair arrests of many men and
women. The law has been wrongly used when marriages break down, even if the
husband or his family did nothing wrong. This causes a lot of problems for
everyone involved. We need to make sure the law is used properly to protect
people from unfair treatment. Section 69 BNS can be wrongly used when a
relationship ends badly, putting any man in a tough spot just because he
decided to break up. This part of the law can become a problem when someone
wants to get back at their ex-partner. The law is kind of unclear, so people
can use it for their own reasons, even if they’re not right. This means
innocent guys could end up in big trouble because of false accusations. To fix
this, we need to make the law clearer and put in rules to stop it from being
misused. We also need to make sure that when there are problems in
relationships, the law is used fairly and doesn’t cause more harm than good.
The law lacks any safeguards to protect innocent people from enduring lengthy
criminal trials for actions they didn’t commit. Since there’s no clear
timeframe outlined in the law regarding promises made during sexual
relationships, medical evidence won’t matter much in these cases. This turns
into a situation where it’s one person’s word against the other’s, often with
the accuser’s statement carrying more weight than any evidence the accused
might have.[12]
Suggestions
The Issue of false promises of
marriage, particularly concerning women, presents a complex legal and societal
challenge in India. While the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has taken a
commendable step forward by explicitly defining this offense in Section 69,
concerns persist regarding the potential for misuse and the challenges faced by
innocent men falsely accused under such provisions. On the other hand, the
absence of a specific provision in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) offers a broader
approach that may benefit all victims, regardless of gender. However, the lack
of clarity and explicit recognition of false promises of marriage in the IPC
also raises concerns about the adequacy of legal protection for victims. In
addressing these concerns, it is essential to strike a balance between
protecting victims and safeguarding the rights of the accused. One key
consideration is the need for robust legal safeguards and procedural mechanisms
to prevent the misuse of false promise of marriage provisions. This may include
stringent evidentiary standards, judicial oversight, and penalties for those
found guilty of making false accusations. Additionally, there is a need for
greater awareness and education among the public about the legal consequences of
making false allegations and the importance of respecting due process rights. Moreover,
efforts should be directed towards enhancing access to legal aid and support
services for both victims and the accused. Providing resources for legal
assistance, counseling, and mediation can help individuals navigate the
complexities of matrimonial disputes and ensure fair and just outcomes. Furthermore,
there is a pressing need for comprehensive legal reforms to address the broader
issue of gender-based violence and discrimination in India. This includes
initiatives to challenge patriarchal norms, promote gender equality, and
strengthen legal protections for women against all forms of exploitation and
abuse. while the inclusion of specific provisions addressing false promises of
marriage in the BNS is a positive step towards protecting women’s rights, it is
crucial to balance this with safeguards to prevent misuse and ensure fairness
for all parties involved. This requires a multifaceted approach that combines
legal reforms, public awareness campaigns, and support services to address the
root causes of gender-based violence and promote a culture of respect,
equality, and justice for all. Only through collective efforts can we create a
society where all individuals, regardless of gender, can live free from the
fear of exploitation and injustice.
[1] https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Bharatiya-Nyaya-Sanhita-2023
[2]
https://www.joshtalks.com/upsc/study-material/Bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita
[3] https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/position-of-false-promise-to-marriage
[4] https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/position-of-false-promise-to-marriage
[5]
https://advocatesuresh.in/section-69-bns/
[6]
https://advocatesuresh.in/section-69-bns/
[7]
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-section-69-bns-challenges-solutions-addressing-ishan-gill-efz7c
[8]
https://advocatesuresh.in/section-69-bns/#google_vignette
[9]
https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/nyaya-sanhita-false-promise-of-marriage/#:~:text=False%20Promise%20to%20Marry%3A%20The,to%20ten%20years%20of%20imprisonment
[10]
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-section-69-bns-challenges-solutions-addressing-ishan-gill-efz7c#:~:text=Section%2069%20of%20BNS%20provides,description%20for%20a%20term%20which
[11]
https://www.change.org/p/repeal-section-69-of-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023
[12]
https://www.change.org/p/repeal-section-69-of-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023
Article Information
LEGAL CHALLENGES AND JUDICIAL RESPONSES A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL FRAMEWORKS: FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE PROVISIONS IN INDIAN PENAL CODE AND BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
Authors: NAZIYA SALIM KHAN
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.