Delhi HC Pulls Up Centre For 1.5-Year Delay On ‘Unnatural Sex’ Law Gap

 The Delhi High Court has sharply criticised the Centre for a delay of about 1½ years in fixing a legal gap left by the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which removed explicit penal provisions for “unnatural sex” and effectively left non‑consensual and age‑related sexual offences of that category without a clear statutory offence. The court has asked the government why it has not yet plugged what it calls an “unacceptable vacuum” in the criminal law, even as section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been repealed and the BNS has come into force.

The bench, hearing a PIL by lawyer Gantavya Gulati, noted that the BNS, which replaced the IPC from July 1, 2024, deliberately dropped traditional “unnatural sex” and sodomy‑related clauses, but the Union government has so far failed to bring in a replacement framework that adequately covers non‑consensual anal or oral sex, sex with minors, and bestiality. The court has warned that, in the absence of a specific offence, even egregious acts that would have been prosecutable under the prior regime risk being treated only as generic “causing hurt” or similar offences, diluting the seriousness of sexual‑violence provisions.​

The judges told the Centre that the legal system cannot remain “blind” to such gaps, pointing out that if a non‑consensual sodomy‑type offence occurs today, the only remaining hook in the statute book may be manipulation via bodily‑hurt or assault provisions, which were not designed as primary sexual‑offence categories. The bench has underlined that the entire exercise of law‑reform was meant to modernise and clarify, not to create a loophole that weakens protection for vulnerable groups, including transgender persons and others who may be targets of such violence.

Also Read: #JUSTIN: 14 Accused of Roza Iftar Boat Party in Varanasi Sent to Judicial Remand

The Centre’s stand‑in counsel had earlier submitted that the issue is under “holistic consideration” and that a comprehensive view is being taken, but the court has now rebuked this prolonged delay, insisting that the legislature and executive cannot allow a prolonged penal void in sensitive sexual‑offence law. The High Court has directed the government to treat the PIL as a representation, and to explain why, more than a year and a half after the BNS took effect, it has not yet introduced an amendment or a fresh provision to address the “unnatural sex” gap in a manner that respects constitutional values and the 2018 Supreme Court verdict on decriminalisation of consensual same‑sex conduct.

Judges have also observed that the current situation may disproportionately affect marginalised communities who already face stigma and limited access to justice, and that the delay only deepens the uncertainty around whether certain grave sexual violations are properly criminalised at all. The court has made it clear that the Centre must now prioritise the lacuna as a matter of public‑interest urgency, and has reserved further directions while waiting for the government’s detailed response.

Also Read: Australian Prime Minister Heckled by Protesters at Sydney Mosque Amid Gaza Tensions