Case Ruling (In Relation To BNSS Section 69)
The Orissa High Court has questioned the assumption that women engage in intimacy only as a step toward marriage. The court ruled that this belief is rooted in patriarchy and not in justice. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi emphasized that the law should not act as a tool for moral policing. He stated that sexual agency is not a contract that mandates marriage.
Background of the Case
The case involved a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. He faced charges under multiple IPC sections, including 376(2)(a), 376(2)(i), and 376(2)(n). The prosecution alleged that he engaged in a nine-year relationship with a woman under a false promise of marriage.
Court’s Observations
The court highlighted the need to separate sex and marriage in legal and social contexts. It stressed that women have the right to make independent choices about their bodies and relationships. Justice Panigrahi criticized the notion that marriage is the ultimate goal of intimacy.
Petitioner’s Stance
The petitioner argued that the charges were unjust and based on outdated societal norms. He contended that the law should not criminalize relationships that fail. He asserted that women should be seen as autonomous individuals capable of making their own choices.
Respondent’s Stance
The prosecution maintained that the petitioner misled the woman by promising marriage. It argued that consent obtained under false promises does not constitute valid consent under the law. The prosecution cited legal precedents where such promises led to convictions.
Impact of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was effective from July 1, 2024. It introduces BNSS Section 69. This section criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including false promises of marriage. The law prescribes up to ten years of imprisonment and a fine.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court’s ruling challenges long-standing patriarchal beliefs. It underscores the importance of recognizing female sexual autonomy. The judgment calls for legal reforms that uphold personal freedom rather than reinforce outdated social norms. The case sets a precedent for future legal interpretations of relationships and consent.
