A PIL before the Kerala High Court has raised serious legal and constitutional questions on the validity of Section 69 of the Bharat National Statute by making sex under a false promise of marriage a criminal offense. An activist, in the petition, has contended that the provision ossifies women as mere passive victims, has not been able to catch up with the complexity of modern relationships, and entirely ignores the rights of LGBTQIA+ people.The Problem of Section 69 BNS Section 69 criminalises sexual intercourse occurring on the basis of a false promise of marriage as deception, therefore, rape under its purview. The said section assumes that any consent to sexual relations on the pretext of a future marriage is vitiated by the misrepresentation. The petitioner contests this formulation on the ground that it infantilises women since it treats them as incapable of consent in a consensual relationship. The PIL has also questioned the gendered nature of the law since it protects only women by excluding men, transgender persons, and individuals from the LGBTQIA+ community, too, who may be misled by false promises. The PIL argues that such a one-sided approach reinforces patriarchal notions and denies agency to individuals from other gender identities. Petitioner, therefore, submits that this Section contravenes Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India which deal with the right to equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty, respectively. Consent and Autonomy - It is one of the central contentions in the PIL that the law must keep pace with the changing mores about relationships - the growing tolerance of premarital sex, for instance. The petitioner contends that choice of adults in a consensual sexual relationship has to be permitted without the Damocles' sword of criminal prosecution looming over them for any misunderstanding or miscommunication about marriage. The PIL contends that not every false promise of marriage should invite criminal liability in cases where such promises flow either from emotional or situational compulsions. Pressing this further, the petitioner states that adults must necessarily be presumed capable of making informed choices about their personal lives and that criminalization here cuts at the very root of individual autonomy. Impact on the LGBTQIA+ Community PIL further points out that Section 69 BNS does not include the LGBTQIA+ community within its ambit. Inasmuch as the section is silent about the same, it does not accord dignity to people of the LGBTQIA+ community when they are equally subjected to the same deceptions. Thus, the PIL argues that this exclusionary nature of law further marginalizes an already vulnerable section of society. Conclusion The PIL before the Kerala High Court gives an incisive critique of the archaic and gender-biased provisions contained in Section 69 BNS. The case, therefore, questions the patriarchal assumptions lying at the heart of the law while seeking an expansion to become more inclusive and respectful of individual autonomy in personal relationships.