Supreme Court says adultery provision in Indian Penal Code a ‘peculiar law’ as it fails test of arbitrariness

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Section 497 of the IPC says, “Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery.

A petition has been filed to question the statutory immunity given to women under Article 15(3) of then constitution where a woman playing the role of an abettor can be absolved from any kind of punishment. The petition intends to make men and women equally liable for adultery intends to be struck down Section 497 of the IPC and section 198(2) of the Cr. P. C together. The government has argued that adultery strikes the institution of marriage and the concept of family.

The Petition

Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj referred the law in question as “archaic” stating various inconsistencies in the section. The advocate submitted before the bench judgement held in the Sowmithri Vishnu case [AIR 1985 SC 1618], where it was held that “We cannot accept that in defining the offence of adultery so as to restrict the class of offenders to men, any constitutional provision is infringed. It is commonly accepted that it is the man who is the seducer and not the woman”, was not acceptable.

Mr.Raj claimed W. Kalyani v. State [(2012) 1 SCC 358 ] as most noteworthy, where it was held that the provisions of section 497 of IPC should be condemned as law it promotes gender prejudice since only a man be prosecuted for the offence of adultery and even an adult woman shall be exempted from the grave misconduct.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that Section 497 derives its legitimacy from the ruling held by SC bench in 1954 on the grounds of protection of women and children permitted under Article 15(3) of the constitution.

Opinion of the Justice

Justice Rohinton Nariman referred to the standard test of Article 14: intelligible differentia, questioning “where is the intelligible differentia in saying that the sanctity of marriage is not hurt if a married man has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman? This is manifest arbitrariness”. Justice D Y Chandrachud observed that if a person indulges in an adulterous relationship with his consent then this itself was an indicator of a “broken marriage”, therefore is suffices as valid ground for divorce. “An ancient provision is not protected under Article 15(3). It is for the Parliament to make (laws under Article 15(3)”, agreed Justice Nariman. Moreover, Justice Indu Malhotra slammed the “absurdity” & “irregularities” of the section in question where wife is objectified and treated as chattel of her husband, amounting to grave gender biasedness.  “Both parties in adultery derive the benefit of the act. Despite that, one is treated as a victim and another punished. There is no rationality in it. The provision is a reflection of the times it was drafted,” Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, by Hindustan Times.

The Judgement

Taking into consideration the societal dynamic nature the constitutional makers had conferred special rights to women & children, but precedents must be inspected by a larger bench. The bench said that to allow sexual intercourse with the consent of a woman’s husband is “an indication of treating the wife as husband’s chattel”. Putting into layman terms, the court ruled that an adulterous relationship is forced upon the woman by the man.

The CJI-led bench said, “If adultery gets scrapped as a crime for violating Article 14, then no one, neither the man nor the woman, will be punished.” Supreme Court calls adultery provision in Indian Penal Code a ‘peculiar law’, as it fails test of arbitrariness. Taking into consideration the sanctity aspect the court stated, “Definitely the matrimonial sanctity aspect is there, but the way the provisions is enacted or made runs counter to Article 14 (Right to equality of the Constitution),” said the bench.

“As far as criminalization or decriminalization of adultery as an offense is concerned, it is in one compartment. Adultery cannot cease to be a ground for seeking divorce by an estranged couple in a court of law,” the bench held.

The CJI said that “if the offense of adultery is retained by making it as gender neutral by the government then it would add “another few lakhs more litigations”.

Author’s Perception:Petition challenged the constitutionality of criminalisation of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and gender prejudice. But decriminalising adultery will pave the road for moral decadence resulting into degradation to country’s traditional values further. It’s obvious that Section 497 of the 158-year-old IPC is “manifestly arbitrary” as it is doesn’t suffice the test of intelligible differentia and endorses “irrational classification”. But the appropriate course of action would be a proper legal framework set up by the government aimed to widen their scope of adultery laws in the country further making them gender-neutral.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -