Transgender Woman Cannot Invoke BNS Section 69 for False Promise of Marriage: Allahabad HC
Verified by KanoonHQ Legal Research Desk
Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a transgender woman cannot invoke Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in a case alleging false promise of marriage. The Court held that Section 69 BNS specifically applies to 'men' making false promises to 'women', thereby excluding transgender individuals from its ambit.
Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is gender-specific, applying only to false promises of marriage made by a 'man' to a 'woman'. The current statutory language does not extend its protection to transgender individuals, irrespective of their gender identity.
Transgender Woman Cannot Invoke BNS Section 69 for False Promise of Marriage: Allahabad HC | KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · KanoonHQ
Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates
Advocates representing transgender individuals in cases of false promise of marriage must explore alternative legal avenues beyond BNS Section 69, such as general cheating provisions. Litigants should be aware of the current limitations of gender-specific criminal statutes and consider legislative reform advocacy.
Key Legal Takeaways
1BNS Section 69 is strictly interpreted as applicable only to 'man' and 'woman'.
2Transgender individuals are currently excluded from the protection of BNS Section 69.
3Legislative amendment is required to include transgender persons under such gender-specific provisions.
The Legal Issue
The core legal issue before the Allahabad High Court was whether a transgender woman could invoke Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in a case where she alleged that a man had made a false promise of marriage to her, leading to a sexual relationship. Section 69 BNS (which corresponds to Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for offences committed before 1 July 2024) specifically addresses sexual intercourse by a man with a woman on the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
Court's Reasoning
The Allahabad High Court, in its reasoning, strictly interpreted the language of Section 69 BNS. The Court observed that the provision explicitly uses the terms 'man' and 'woman,' thereby defining the scope of its applicability. The bench concluded that, as per the current statutory wording, the protection offered by Section 69 BNS is limited to cases where a 'man' makes a false promise of marriage to a 'woman.' Consequently, the Court held that a transgender woman, despite her gender identity, could not invoke this specific section due to the gender-specific terminology used in the statute. The Court did not delve into the broader aspects of gender identity or the rights of transgender persons under other laws but focused solely on the literal interpretation of the BNS provision.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant as it highlights a critical gap in India's new criminal law regime concerning the protection of transgender individuals. While the BNS aims to modernize criminal law, the Allahabad High Court's ruling underscores that certain provisions remain gender-binary, potentially leaving transgender persons without specific recourse under these sections. This judgment necessitates a re-evaluation of gender-specific language in criminal statutes to ensure inclusive protection for all genders, including transgender individuals. For advocates, it means exploring alternative legal provisions, such as those related to cheating or other forms of sexual assault, when representing transgender clients in similar situations, and potentially advocating for legislative amendments to address these lacunae.