Broken Promises or Broken Laws? The Legal Risks of Redefining Consent
Joyeeta Saha : Having consensual sexual intercourse by inducing a woman with false promise of marriage, sounds very concerning right? Especially when, people commit sexual exploitation every other day in this ongoing era.
The crucial element of the woman’s consent is involved in such cases. If the woman has willingly consented to the act, then it does not matter if the promise is genuine or deceptive. The reason is the Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees equality before law and protection of personal liberty.
Now it may be a man or a woman who may induce the other person with false promise of marriage for getting involved in a sexual relation. The question arises why I am only mentioning “inducing woman” here and why only “woman’s consent” is getting significance, when the situation can be vice-versa.
Recently, the Women and Children Prevention(Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 was enacted and a section was added to criminalize consensual sexual relation under false promise of marriage. The section outlines some key points-
- Woman has to be above sixteen years of age.
- No use of physical force involved.
- The act is committed by a false promise of marriage.
- The woman had a relationship of trust with the man.
- Punishment is rigorous imprisonment of maximum 7 years and fine.
In my view, some major issues exist in the provision.
-First of all, the adult woman committing the act has the right to make her own independent decision about her sexual relationships. That decision whether wise or not, gets downright undervalued. Thus, the protection of her personal liberty provided in Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh is at stake when her autonomy is undermined.
-Secondly, what do you think can be the example of a false promise? Is it when someone says, “I promise I am going to marry you” or “I will always be with you” or “Soon we will inform our parents about us”? These could very well be genuine sentiments at that time, which may change depending on circumstances. Consequently, there is lack of clarity in this false marriage factor.
-Thirdly, the woman believes the promise made by the man based on relation of trust between them. If they really had a relation of trust only they would know about it, not anyone else. Therefore, it is subjective and courts would struggle to determine the scope and validity of this trust, especially when, in most cases the woman will admit and the man will deny it. The question raises, are there alternative ways to prove the existence of trust?
-Lastly, the provision is gender-specific penalizing only men. Is it necessarily true that only men can engage in sexual relations by false promise of marriage? In a society striving for gender equality, this will bring an undesirable effect. Article 27 of the Constitution which ensures equality before law is getting clearly violated.
My main concern in this provision is that the false marriage factor and the relation of trust factor are both very much subjective which makes this whole provision unreliable. So, the probability of the wrong person being punished and justice not being ensured gets much higher. In conclusion, there is huge probability of this provision to become a mean of moral policing rather than a protector of justice.
Author is a Student, Department of Law, East West University.
