![[Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] Transgender Individuals Cannot Invoke Section 69 For False Promise O](images/1726667382-2.jpg)
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that transgender individuals cannot seek protection under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning offenses related to false promises of marriage. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma in the case of Bhupesh Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (CMP(M) No. 1798 of 2024), highlights the limitations of the legal framework in addressing issues involving transgender individuals.
Case Background:
The case began with an FIR filed on July 18, 2024, at the Women Police Station in Baddi, District Solan. The complainant, a transgender woman, accused Bhupesh Thakur of deceiving her into a relationship by promising marriage. Despite knowing her transgender status, Thakur allegedly pursued a romantic relationship, even performing a symbolic marriage ceremony. However, after urging her to undergo gender reassignment surgery, Thakur later refused to marry her, prompting the complainant to file the FIR under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, and Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Legal Issues:
The court was faced with two main questions:
1. Applicability of Section 69 of BNS: This section criminalizes deceitful sexual relations based on false marriage promises. The court had to determine whether a transgender individual could be considered a "woman" under this law.
2. Definitions of Gender: Under BNS, the terms "woman" and "transgender" are defined separately, leading the court to assess whether transgender individuals can seek protection under Section 69.
Court's Decision:
Justice Sharma ruled that Section 69 of the BNS could not be applied to transgender individuals, as the section explicitly defines a "woman" as a "female human being," and transgender persons are recognized as a distinct category. The court clarified that while transgender individuals are included in the broader definition of gender in the BNS, they do not fall under the definition of "woman" for the purposes of Section 69.
However, the court noted that the complainant could still seek justice under Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which addresses harm or deceit against transgender individuals. Justice Sharma stated that while Thakur could not be prosecuted under Section 69 of the BNS, he may still be held accountable under the Transgender Persons Act.
Bail Granted:
The court granted interim bail to Bhupesh Thakur, stating that his continued detention was unwarranted since his guilt had not been proven. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and highlighted that the purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence at trial, not to punish prematurely. Conditions were imposed on the bail, including regular court attendance and restrictions on leaving the country.
Conclusion:
This ruling draws attention to the evolving legal challenges faced by transgender individuals in India and underscores the need for a more inclusive legal approach. The case reflects the growing recognition of transgender rights, while also pointing out gaps in current legal protections for them in specific situations like false promises of marriage.
Advotalks: Talk To Lawyers https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
