What are unnatural offences excluded in BNS? Here's what High Court orders to govt

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court orders the Central government to promptly consider a petition challenging the omission of protection against 'unnatural offences' in the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). Previously, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) offered safeguards against such offences, but the revised BNS does not include a similar provision, sparking concerns and prompting the plea.

A two-judge panel comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tusha Rao Gedela issued the order today in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Gantavya Gulati. The petitioner requested the court's intervention to direct the Central government to reinstate legal protections against non-consensual sexual acts. This move aims to safeguard the rights, safety and dignity of individuals, particularly members of the LGBTQIA+ community, similar to the protections previously offered under Section 377 of the IPC.

What are unnatural offences excluded?

The Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) does not consider sexual attacks on men, transgender people, and animals as serious crimes, which is a big concern. These groups do not have the same legal protection as others, making them more vulnerable to harm. By leaving out these groups, the BNS has created a gap in the law that needs to be fixed to keep everyone safe from sexual abuse.

Court warns of legal vacuum on non-consensual sex protections

The Court expressed concern over the potential legal vacuum, stating, "There can't be a vacuum to an offence. The judges pointed out the implications of removing protections against non-consensual sex, saying, 'What people were asking was not to make consensual sex punishable. You made even non-consensual sex not punishable... Suppose, something happens outside the court, are we all to shut our eyes because it is not a penal offence in statute books?" The Court's remarks highlighted the need for clear legal provisions to address such offences."

Court seeks prompt action

The Court emphasized the need for swift action, noting that the matter requires immediate attention. The judges stated, "If it requires an ordinance that can also come. We are also thinking aloud. Since you are indicating some problems, the process will likely take a long way. We are just thinking aloud." The Court's comments underscored the importance of prompt government action to address the legal vacuum.

The Court directed the government to consider the PIL as a formal request and make a decision on the matter with utmost urgency, stipulating a timeframe of six months for completion. The Bench ordered the government to take a decision "as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months."