Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Indian legal system is grappling with a complex issue surrounding sexual consent and false promises of marriage. Recent Supreme Court judgments have highlighted the delicate balance between protecting women from sexual exploitation and preventing the misuse of rape laws. The courts have been carefully examining what constitutes a "false promise" and when a breach of a marriage promise can be considered a criminal offense. 

What is the Core Issue Raised by the Supreme Court? 

• The Supreme Court has raised concerns about a growing trend of invoking rape charges after the breakdown of prolonged consensual relationships, particularly when a promise of marriage is not fulfilled. 
• The legal system distinguishes between a "false promise to marry" and a "breach of promise to marry", with critical implications for determining sexual consent and potential criminal liability. 
  • For a promise to be considered "false" and potentially constitute rape, two key conditions must be met:  
  • the promise must have been made in bad faith with no initial intention of fulfillment, and  
• the promise must be directly linked to the woman's decision to engage in sexual relations. 
• Consent can be vitiated (invalidated) if it was obtained through a deliberate misconception of fact, specifically when the man never intended to marry at the time of making the promise. 
• Simply breaking a promise to marry or encountering unforeseen circumstances that prevent marriage does not automatically constitute a criminal offense of rape. 
• The courts emphasize that in long-term consensual relationships, it cannot be presumed that sexual relations were solely based on a marriage promise, and multiple motivations might exist for maintaining such a relationship. 
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has introduced a new provision addressing sexual intercourse through deceitful means, which includes false promises of marriage, punishable with up to ten years of imprisonment. 
• The judiciary seeks to strike a balance between protecting women from sexual exploitation and preventing misuse of rape laws by carefully examining the intentions and circumstances surrounding marriage promises. 
• Recent Supreme Court judgments have consistently held that a mere breakup of a consensual relationship cannot be automatically transformed into a criminal offense, requiring proof of deliberate deception from the outset. 
• The Court emphasized that consent must be an "active and reasoned deliberation," not a passive or coerced agreement. This means the woman must consciously and thoughtfully agree to the sexual act, understanding its implications. 
• The Court drew a critical distinction between a "false promise" and an "unfulfilled promise":  
  • A false promise involves deliberate deception from the outset, with no genuine intention to marry 
  • An unfulfilled promise is merely a promise that couldn't be kept due to genuine circumstances 
• The core legal principle established is that consent can be vitiated (invalidated) when:  
  • The promise to marry was made with the explicit intention to deceive 
  • The woman's decision to engage in sexual relations was fundamentally based on this misconception 
  • The maker of the promise never intended to uphold their word at the moment it was given

What are Key Observations of the Supreme Court? 

• In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) the Court emphasized that "consent" must involve an active and reasoned deliberation, establishing two critical conditions for considering a marriage promise as false: the promise must be made in bad faith and directly influence the woman's decision to engage in sexual relations. 
• In Niam Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) the Court observed that not every breach of a marriage promise constitutes a false promise, recognizing that unforeseen circumstances or complications might prevent marriage fulfillment without criminal intent. 
• In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024) the Supreme Court highlighted a "worrying trend" of criminalizing consensual relationships that turn sour, cautioning against automatically converting a relationship breakdown into a rape case. 
  • The Court consistently maintained that to prove a false promise, there must be adequate evidence demonstrating that from the initial stage, the accused had no genuine intention of marrying the woman. 
• In cases like Prashant v. State of Delhi (2024) the Court explicitly stated that a mere relationship breakup cannot be transformed into a criminal proceeding, emphasizing that consensual initial relations cannot be retroactively criminalized. 

What is Section 69 of BNS, 2023? 

• Legal Scope:  
  • The section criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, specifically when a man promises to marry a woman without any genuine intention of fulfilling that promise, creating a distinct legal category separate from rape. 
• Punishment:  
  • The law prescribes a stringent punishment of imprisonment up to ten years and a mandatory fine for anyone found guilty of employing such deceitful tactics to obtain sexual consent. 
• Broad Definition of "Deceitful Means":  
  • The explanation explicitly expands the definition to include multiple fraudulent practices such as:  
    • False promises of employment 
    • False promises of job promotion 
    • Marrying by deliberately suppressing one's true identity 
• Intent and Consent:  
  • The provision focuses on the deliberate intent to deceive and obtain sexual consent through fraudulent representations, recognizing that such actions constitute a serious violation of personal autonomy and trust. 
• Distinguishing Characteristic:  
  • Unlike rape charges, this provision creates a separate legal mechanism to address sexual interactions obtained through systematic deception, offering a nuanced approach to protecting individual consent and dignity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has cautioned against a troubling trend of criminalizing consensual relationships that end unhappily. While protecting women from sexual deceit remains crucial, the judiciary emphasizes that not every unfulfilled marriage promise amounts to rape. The new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita introduces a nuanced provision to address sexual intercourse by deceitful means, reflecting a more balanced approach to such sensitive legal matters.