Supreme Court: Quashes FIR Under Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani Section 69 BNS

• The Supreme Court quashed an FIR filed under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including false promises of marriage. The BNS, 2023, came into effect on July 1, 2024.
• Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran ruled that a promise of marriage broken due to parental objection indicated the original promise was made "with all good intention," thus negating deceit. Both are currently Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
• Section 69 BNS was enacted to create a distinct, lesser offense for consent obtained deceptively, particularly through false marriage assurances.
• Critics argue the Court's reasoning could provide a "ready-made script" for accused individuals to evade accountability by citing family opposition.
• The judgment raises concerns that the defense of "family opposition" may not be subjected to sufficient judicial scrutiny, potentially weakening the provision's effectiveness.

This judicial rationale could inadvertently furnish a "ready-made script" for an accused: first, promise marriage, then engage in a physical relationship, and subsequently, if the relationship deteriorates, simply attribute the broken promise to a disapproving parent.

India's Supreme Court recently intervened in a case involving Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, a new provision criminalizing sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, particularly a false promise of marriage. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, is the official criminal code of India and came into effect on July 1, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code of 1860. Section 69 of the BNS specifically addresses sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran issued an order to quash an FIR that had been registered under this specific section. Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala was appointed as a Judge at the Supreme Court on May 9, 2022, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on January 16, 2025.

The complaint detailed that the accused had engaged in a physical relationship with the complainant after providing an assurance of marriage. However, the accused later withdrew this promise, citing his mother's disapproval of the union. The Court's decision hinged on its interpretation of the accused's initial intent, concluding that the refusal, prompted by parental objection, indicated the original promise had been made "with all good intention." Consequently, the Court determined that no deceit, as defined by Section 69, had occurred in this particular instance.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was specifically introduced to address situations where consent for sexual intercourse is obtained through deceptive practices. This provision primarily targets cases involving a false promise of marriage, which is a common scenario where individuals might feel their consent was not freely given but rather coerced by a misleading assurance.

The legislative intent behind Section 69 was to create a distinct and lesser offense compared to rape. It aims to carve out a legal space for conduct that, while falling short of the stringent definition of rape, nonetheless involves vitiating consent through fraud or deceit. This distinction acknowledges the nuanced nature of consent, especially when influenced by significant personal commitments like marriage.

While the specific outcome of the Supreme Court's judgment might be defensible given the unique facts presented, the underlying reasoning employed by the Court has raised significant concerns among legal observers. Critics argue that this interpretation risks establishing a problematic precedent, potentially providing a convenient defense for individuals accused under Section 69.

This judicial rationale could inadvertently furnish a "ready-made script" for an accused: first, promise marriage, then engage in a physical relationship, and subsequently, if the relationship deteriorates, simply attribute the broken promise to a disapproving parent. Such a defense, critics contend, ought to invite a far greater degree of judicial suspicion than it currently appears to receive, given its potential to undermine the protective intent of Section 69 and allow genuine deceit to go unpunished.

Source: Original reporting via legal analysis