Controversy Over India’s New Law on “Promise to Marry”: Protecting Women or Criminalizing Break-Ups?
India’s newly enacted law, which could imprison men for up to 10 years if they deceitfully break promises of marriage after having sex, has ignited a heated debate. The legislation, introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government as part of a broader overhaul of the country’s 164-year-old penal code, aims to address a form of sexual exploitation that has long been overlooked. However, it raises concerns about its practical application, the potential criminalization of consensual relationships, and the broader implications for modern relationships in India.
Section 69 of the new criminal code specifically targets men who engage in sexual relations with women by falsely promising marriage or using deceitful means such as false promises of career advancement or marriage under a fake identity. The law, which prescribes a punishment of up to 10 years in prison and a fine, has sparked questions about how it will be enforced and whether it can truly protect women from sexual exploitation.
The concept behind the law is not entirely new. Indian courts have previously grappled with cases where women accused men of luring them into sexual relationships under the pretext of marriage. Under the old penal code, some judges ruled that sex obtained under false pretenses was non-consensual, leading to rape convictions. However, inconsistent rulings have led to confusion and a lack of clarity in the legal system. The new law seeks to address this by distinguishing “promise to marry” cases from rape, but critics argue that the parameters remain vague and open to interpretation.
One of the primary concerns is proving deceit and intent in court. Legal experts question how one can establish a person’s intention to marry, especially in a world where relationships can be complex and evolving. Without clear evidence, proving that a man had no intention of fulfilling his promise from the start could be challenging, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or the misuse of the law.
Moreover, the law has shifted the burden of proof onto the victim, raising concerns about how effectively it can protect women without compromising their rights. Previously, rape victims, including those in “promise to marry” cases, were required to undergo medical examinations. The new law does not mandate such exams, which some experts argue could weaken the prosecution’s case.
The law’s relevance in modern India, where attitudes towards relationships and premarital sex are changing, is also being questioned. Younger Indians, particularly those in urban and middle-class communities, are increasingly moving away from traditional norms like arranged marriages. Many see the law as potentially outdated and not reflective of the evolving dynamics of modern relationships.
Despite these concerns, some advocates, like Audrey Dmello of Majlis Law, believe the law empowers women and provides them with a legal avenue to seek justice in cases of sexual exploitation. She argues that the law gives women validity and recognition for what they have experienced, shifting societal attitudes that often place the burden of blame on women.
As the debate over the new law continues, it remains to be seen how it will be implemented and whether it will strike the right balance between protecting women from deceitful men and respecting the complexities of modern relationships.
