On the crime of ‘false promise to marry’ (GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Why in news?
- The proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which seeks to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, identifies ‘sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage’ as an offence.
- If a man promises to marry a woman but never intends to, and still has ‘consensual’ sex with her, it will amount to a criminal offence under Section 69 of the (BNS), 2023.
- At present, the offence is not carved out separately in the IPC, but courts have dealt with similar cases through other provisions within the criminal law framework.
What does Section 69 say?
- Chapter 5 of the Bill, titled “Offences against woman and children” describes ‘sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.’
- Section 69 creates two violations: one by deceitful means, and one by a ‘false promise to marry.’
- Deceitful means will include the “false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marrying after suppressing identity.”
- The false promise to marry will be attracted only when a man makes a promise to marry a woman, with the intention of breaking it, for the purpose of getting her consent and sexually exploiting her. Both offences will extract a penalty of up to ten years of imprisonment.
How has the IPC dealt with cases of ‘false promise to marry’?
- In 2016, a quarter of the total rape cases registered in Delhi pertained to sex under ‘false promise of marriage’, as per Delhi Police data.
- The National Crime Records Bureau in the same year recorded 10,068 similar cases of rape by “known persons on a promise to marry the victim” (the number was 7,655 in 2015).
- These cases happen in one of two ways; when rape is committed, and the promise of marriage is used to silence the victim, or where the promise is made to ‘convince’ the person into entering a sexual relationship. Activists note that such cases play out mostly among socially disadvantaged women, given that legal remedy cannot be easily sought.
- BNS penalises those coercing women into sexual relationships. Previously, these cases were dealt with through a joint reading of Sections 375 and 90 of the IPC.
- Section 375, which defines rape, further defines consent as “an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates a willingness to participate in the specific sexual act.”
- Explanation 2 of Section 375 also lists seven types of consent which would amount to rape if violated; these include if a man has sexual intercourse with a woman “without her consent,” or consent taken through fear of death, hurt or intoxication.
- In 2021, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 375, a woman’s consent “must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act”.
- Section 90 says consent, given under “fear of injury” or “misconception of fact,” cannot be considered as consent. Cases of false promise to marry are dealt with under the latter, where a ‘misconception’ is used to assess the validity of consent. Legal scholars have questioned the use of Section 90 to interpret consent, given that Section 375 already lays out a definition.
What is the difference between ‘false promise’ and ‘breach of promise’?
- The law has distinguished between a ‘false promise’ and a ‘breach of promise’ on the basis of proving if the man intended to marry at the time of engaging in sex. Courts have previously recognised the ambiguity in determining consent and intention in such cases.
- The SC observed that a false promise is “given on the understanding by its maker that it will be broken,” but a breach of promise is “made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled.”
- Put simply, if a man can prove he intended to marry the woman before he entered into a sexual relationship, but later is unable to due to whatever reason, it is not legally punishable. The Supreme Court in 2022 held that consensual sex on a ‘genuine’ promise of marriage does not constitute rape.
How is intention to marry proved?
- Cases of ‘false promise of marriage’ look at two central issues; how consent is obtained (through deceitful means, or by misconception), and whether the man ever intended to marry the woman.
- The Supreme Court in 2023 said every breach of promise is not rape, noting: “One cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him.”
- But activists argue that ‘circumstances’ are shorthand for social norms that uphold the status quo, reinforcing gender roles, patriarchy and caste lines.
Issues with Section 69:
- Moreover, Section 69 in the BNS codifies the offence instead of creating a new one. Thus, in its present form, the Bill doesn’t dissolve the confused distinction between ‘false promise’ and ‘breach of promise,’ and overlooks the inherent limitations in criminal law which feminist and anti-caste activists have pointed out.
- There are two critiques that may spill over to Section 69, if unscrutinised. One is that such applications promote restrictive ideas about women, marriage and consent; they hinder women’s autonomy and re-victimise them.
- Courts have previously relied on a woman’s age, sexual history and marital status to question their ability to ‘trust’ the promise of marriage.
- “If a fully grown-up lady consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise to marry and continues to indulge in such activity for long, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact,” the Delhi High Court ruled in a case. Activists note that these train a ‘victim-blaming’ lens on the issue and shift the burden to women to prove their consent was vitiated.
- The vagueness, and discretionary nature of rulings, often power the narrative that these are instances of ‘love gone sour.’
Endogamy:
- The law promotes endogamy and shifts the conversation away from the real harm and abuse that women face.
- The judgment in Uday versus State of Karnataka (2003) became the basis for several future outcomes. A woman from an OBC caste accused a Brahmin man of raping and impregnating her. The man promised to marry her but later reneged on the promise.
- A Supreme Court Bench ruled against rape, saying there was no evidence to show a lack of intention; instead, since the parties belonged to ‘different castes,’ the victim had to be ‘clearly conscious’ of the ‘stiff opposition’ the relationship would face, and this wasn’t a case of misconception.
- It “promotes endogamy” and reified “the institution of caste while also penalising the prosecutrix for not adhering to caste norms.”
Conclusion:
- Without clarity on ‘justifiable intentions’, commentators add the Bill would empower a cycle where the consequences of crime are specified, but the consequences of harm, which women bear, are overlooked.
