As per section 69 of the Bhartiya Nhaya Sanhita Whoever by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: "deceitful means" shall include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marrying after suppressing identity.

The Erosion of Women's Dignity: Employment Practices Based on Sexual Favors
Sexual intercourse as a ground for giving employment and not merit touches upon significant issues related to gender discrimination, dignity, and ethical standards in employment practices. This discussion primarily revolves around cases where individuals, typically women, are expected or coerced into sexual relations in exchange for job opportunities, rather than being evaluated based on their qualifications, skills, and merit.

Firstly, this practice directly violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Employment decisions should be based solely on an individual's capabilities and qualifications relevant to the job role. When sexual favors become a criterion for employment, it undermines meritocracy and creates an environment where competence and diligence are overshadowed by personal relationships or exploitation.

Moreover, such practices perpetuate gender inequality and reinforce harmful stereotypes about women's roles in the workplace. It creates a power dynamic where those in positions of authority or influence misuse their status to demand sexual favors, thereby exploiting the vulnerability of job seekers, especially women who may be in more precarious socio-economic situations.

From a legal standpoint, many countries have laws and regulations explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sex and ensuring fair employment practices. These laws aim to protect individuals from harassment, coercion, or discrimination in the workplace, including situations where sexual favors are demanded or expected in exchange for job opportunities.

Furthermore, the ethical dimensions of this issue are profound. Respect for human dignity requires that individuals be treated with fairness, integrity, and without exploitation. Using one's position of power to manipulate or coerce another person into engaging in sexual activity compromises these ethical principles and erodes trust in institutions responsible for employment decisions.

In addition to the immediate harm caused to individuals subjected to such practices, there are broader societal implications. It undermines efforts towards gender equality and inclusivity in the workforce by perpetuating environments where women are objectified or valued based on criteria unrelated to their professional capabilities.

Addressing this issue requires multifaceted approaches. Organizations must establish and enforce clear policies against harassment and discrimination, including specific guidelines on ethical recruitment practices. Training programs can also educate employees and employers about respectful workplace conduct and the importance of merit-based recruitment. Civil society plays a crucial role in advocating for the rights of vulnerable individuals and holding accountable those who engage in discriminatory or exploitative practices. Awareness campaigns, legal advocacy, and support services for victims are essential components of efforts to combat this issue effectively.

Ultimately, eradicating the practice of using sexual intercourse as a criterion for employment requires a concerted effort from all sectors of society-government, businesses, civil society organizations, and individuals. It demands a commitment to upholding human rights, promoting gender equality, and ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to pursue employment based on their skills, qualifications, and merit alone

In India, the issue of sexual intercourse as a basis for employment, rather than merit, has been addressed through various legal cases and legislative measures that highlight the gravity of such practices and the steps taken to combat them.

One notable case is the Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) which led to the landmark Vishakha Guidelines. The Supreme Court of India recognized that sexual harassment at workplaces violates the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Vishakha Guidelines laid down preventive measures and procedures to be followed by employers in cases of sexual harassment, emphasizing the duty of employers to provide a safe working environment free from sexual harassment.

Another significant case is that of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (1996), where Rupan Deol Bajaj, an Indian Administrative Service officer, accused KPS Gill, then Director General of Police, of making lewd gestures and passing sexually colored remarks at a party. The case brought attention to the issue of sexual harassment in public offices and led to increased awareness and scrutiny of such behavior among public officials.

Legislation such as the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, further strengthened protections against sexual harassment in India. The Act mandates employers to implement mechanisms for addressing complaints of sexual harassment, conduct inquiries, and provide redressal to victims. It defines sexual harassment broadly, encompassing unwelcome physical contact, advances, or demand or request for sexual favors.

The legal provision in question, which criminalises deceitful means employed by a man to secure sexual intercourse, raises significant issues regarding gender bias, the implications for the LGBTQ+ community, and the assumptions underlying the legislative intent. The petitioner's arguments highlight these concerns effectively, suggesting a need for critical examination and potential reform.

Gender Bias in Legislative Intent-Violation of Right to Equality:
The provision specifies that only men can be held accountable for engaging in deceitful practices to obtain sexual intercourse. This not only reflects an outdated notion of gender roles but also implies that men alone are capable of deception in romantic or sexual contexts. The assumption that men are the primary perpetrators of such deceitful acts fails to acknowledge that women, too, can wield power and influence in relationships, especially in contemporary society where gender dynamics are evolving. By framing the offense in a male-centric manner, the legislation perpetuates the stereotype that women are passive victims, thus undermining the complexity of human relationships.

This gendered framing also ignores the reality that individuals of any gender can deceive others. The singular focus on male behavior neglects the possibility that women and non-binary individuals can, and do, engage in similar deceitful acts. Consequently, the provision risks alienating victims of deceit who do not fit neatly into the prescribed gender binary. This creates a legal environment that may not adequately protect all potential victims, thus limiting justice and support for those affected.

The provision that holds only men accountable for deceitful practices in securing sexual intercourse fundamentally violates the right to equality, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This gender-specific approach not only perpetuates outdated stereotypes but also disregards the principle that all individuals, regardless of gender, should be equally accountable for their actions. In the case of R.K. Sharma v. Union of India (2016), the court underscored the importance of gender neutrality in the legal framework. The court highlighted that laws should be applied equally, without bias toward any gender. The provision's focus on men perpetuates the stereotype that women are merely victims, which diminishes their autonomy and fails to recognize their capacity to act deceitfully.

Exclusion of the LGBTQ+ Community
Moreover, the provision's wording inherently excludes the LGBTQ+ community. By defining the perpetrator as male, the law fails to recognize same-sex relationships and the potential for deceit within those dynamics. This exclusion is particularly troubling in a society that increasingly acknowledges the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. The inability of these individuals to seek legal recourse under this provision suggests a legislative gap that is not only discriminatory but also harmful. The notion that deceitful sexual conduct can only occur in heterosexual contexts is archaic and out of touch with modern societal norms.

It is thereby strongly emphasised that the law's failure to protect LGBTQ+ individuals creates a dangerous precedent. It suggests that the legal system does not recognize their experiences or the potential for exploitation in their relationships. As a result, the provision effectively silences a significant portion of the population and denies them the protection they deserve under the law.

Vagueness in Law: The Implications of the Provision Violating the Right to Life
The provision criminalizing deceitful means for sexual intercourse raises significant concerns regarding its vagueness, particularly regarding the term "identity." The lack of a clear definition invites confusion and ambiguity, as "identity" could encompass a wide range of aspects, including marital status, sexual orientation, economic background, caste, religion, race, or employment. This ambiguity can lead to arbitrary enforcement, where the interpretation of "identity" may vary widely among legal authorities, ultimately undermining the rule of law.

It is hereby pointed out that the provision risks criminalizing consensual sexual relationships that do not culminate in marriage. In contemporary society, relationships are complex, dynamic, and often fluid. By attempting to regulate these personal interactions through legal means, the legislature encroaches upon the private lives of individuals, thereby infringing upon their autonomy. It is unrealistic and regressive to impose criminal liability on relationships based solely on the outcome of marriage. Such a stance not only fails to acknowledge the validity of non-marital unions but also dismisses the evolving nature of human relationships in modern society.

Furthermore, the legislature has previously recognized the legitimacy of live-in relationships, as indicated by the inclusion of terms like "relationship in the nature of marriage" in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The judiciary has also affirmed that consensual live-in relationships do not constitute an offense, as established in the case of Khushboo Kannaimal and Others v. Union of India (2010-SC) . This judicial precedent highlights a growing acknowledgment of diverse relationship forms, suggesting that the current legislative framework is out of sync with societal realities.

By penalizing relationships that may not conform to traditional marriage norms, the provision is not only regressive but also poses a threat to individual rights. It infringes upon the fundamental right of individuals to engage in consensual relationships, undermining their freedom to choose their partners without fear of legal repercussions. Ultimately, this vagueness and the potential for misuse make the provision problematic and necessitate a reevaluation to align with contemporary values of consent, autonomy, and equality.

The Illusion of Opportunity: The Consequences of Temporary Employment
One of the criticisms directed at Section 69 revolves around its application to situations involving false promises of employment. The law primarily focuses on cases where a man deceives a woman with promises of marriage, but it also extends to promises of employment without the intent to fulfill them. However, the provision does not distinguish between temporary and permanent employment promises, which can lead to problematic outcomes.

In scenarios involving promises of employment, the criticism suggests that the law fails to adequately address cases where a person provides temporary employment and later terminates it. The absence of clarity regarding the nature and duration of employment promised can create ambiguity. For instance, if a woman engages in sexual activity based on a promise of employment, and the employment is terminated abruptly, she may not have legal recourse under Section 69 because the promise was not explicitly for permanent or long-term employment.

Moreover, the law's focus on the intent behind the promise of employment raises questions about proving deceit. It may be challenging to establish in court that the promise of employment was made solely to induce sexual intercourse, especially if the employment was indeed provided for a period, albeit temporary. This aspect highlights potential difficulties in applying the law uniformly and effectively across different circumstances.

Legal Implications and Need for Reform:
The implications of this provision extend beyond individual cases. By maintaining a narrow definition of deceitful intercourse that exclusively targets men, the law creates a culture that may inadvertently endorse gender-based stereotypes and biases. Legal reforms should seek to address these disparities, creating a more inclusive framework that recognizes the complexity of human relationships irrespective of gender.

A potential reform could involve rephrasing the provision to encompass all individuals who engage in deceitful behavior to obtain consent for sexual intercourse. This approach would not only broaden the scope of the law but also ensure that all victims-regardless of their gender or sexual orientation-receive equal protection under the law. Additionally, incorporating comprehensive research and data on deceit in relationships, particularly in the context of power dynamics, would enhance the legislation's relevance and effectiveness.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Muntazir Hussain

Authentication No: DE434050101130-5-1224