English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Adultery not a crime, can be a ground for divorce, says Supreme Court

Published

on

Adultery not a crime, can be a ground for divorce, says Supreme Court

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Supreme Court today (Thursday, September 27) junked the 158 year old adultery law unconstitutional, holding it as oppressive to women and treating them as husbands’ property.

Section 497 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) punished a man who has an affair with a woman “without the consent or connivance of” her husband, with five years in jail or fine or both. The wife of the man having an extra-marital affair could not lodge a complaint and woman having an affair with her husband was seen as a victim and was not liable for punishment.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1538038750464{padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #a2b1bf !important;border-radius: 10px !important;}”]According to Section 497 of IPC, “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”. Adultery presently entails imprisonment for a term which may extend up to five years, or fine, or both.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]In four separate but concurring judgments, the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench held that Section 497 of IPC fell foul of Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (Right to equality): the SC said it treated the woman as her husband’s property and ruled, “The husband is not the master of the wife.”

The apex court also declared Section 198(1) and 198(2) of the CrPC, which allows a husband to bring charges against the man with whom his wife committed adultery, unconstitutional.

“The wife can’t be treated as chattel and it’s time to say that husband is not the master of woman,” said the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra.

Adultery can be ground for any civil wrong. There cant be any social license that destroys the matrimonial home, but adultery should not be a criminal offence,” he said. Stating that a wife was not a chattel of the husband, Misra said, “Any provision of law affecting individual dignity and equality of women invites the wrath of the Constitution. It’s time to say that a husband is not the master of wife. Legal sovereignty of one sex over other sex is wrong.”

The judges noted that most countries had abolished laws against adultery. Making adultery a crime is retrograde and would mean “punishing unhappy people”, said Justice Misra.

As he began reading out the verdict, the Chief Justice remarked that the beauty of the Constitution is it includes “the I, me and you” and “any law which dents individual dignity and equity of women in a civilised society invites the wrath of the Constitution.”

The top court, calling adultery a relic of the past, said Section 497 “denudes women from making choices.”

During arguments, the Centre had defended the law saying adultery must remain a crime so that the sanctity of marriage can be protected. The top court had then questioned how the law preserved the sanctity of marriage when the extramarital affair didn’t invite punishment if the woman’s husband stood by her.

“It’s illogical to say sexual act is not an offence if it’s done with his (husband’s) consent,” ruled the top court.

The Chief Justice said today that adultery might not be the cause of an unhappy marriage; it could be the result of one.

“In case of adultery, criminal law expects people to be loyal which is a command which gets into the realm of privacy… A man having sexual intercourse with a married woman is not a crime,” the judges felt.

The Supreme Court had upheld the legality of the crime in 1954, arguing that in adultery “it is commonly accepted that it is the man who is the seducer, and not the women.”

The Supreme Court today rejected the logic, saying, “Man being the seducer and women being the victim no longer exits. Equality is the governing principle of a system. Husband is not the master of the wife.”

“To attach criminality to something happening in the four walls of privacy is wrong. Law cannot distinguish between man and woman when both have equal role,” the SC added.

“Sexual autonomy of woman cannot be compromised. It’s a result of patriarchal society. It’s her right and there cannot be any condition imposed on her. Chastity is not for woman alone as it is also equally applicable to husband,” the court said.

Last year, in response to the petition challenging the law, the court had said it treats a woman as her husband’s subordinate and time had come for society to realise that a woman is as equal to a man in every respect.

Justice RF Nariman termed Section 497 archaic and concurred with the judgment of the CJI and Justice AM Khanwilkar, saying the penal provision was violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women. Justice DY Chandrachud said Section 497 destroyed and deprived women of dignity. “Section 497 is based on gender stereotypes of the role women. The provision is unconstitutional,” Chandrachud said.

Saying that Section 497 also deprived a woman of her privacy, he said, “Society has two sets of standards for judging the morality of men and women. The law is gender biased, gives unequal voice to partners.”

Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge on the bench, said that Section 497 was a clear violation of fundamental rights granted in the Constitution and there was no justification for the continuation of the provision.

The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had reserved judgment on August 8, saying that making adultery a penal offence would be irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petition seeking the repeal of Section 497 IPC was filed by a non-resident Keralite — Joseph Shine — who termed the 158-year-old law enacted by the Britishers as “unjust, illegal and arbitrary and violative of citizens’ fundamental rights”. Questioning the gender bias in the provision drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860, Shine has also challenged Section 198(2) of the CrPC.

On January 5, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, referred the PIL to a larger constitutional bench. The bench had contended the provision seemed “quite archaic, especially when there is societal progress”. In three earlier judgments in 1954, 1985 and in 1988, the court had upheld the provision.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

PM Modi skips Lok Sabha reply as protests force repeated adjournments

PM Modi did not deliver his Lok Sabha reply today after sustained Opposition protests led to repeated adjournments over a dispute involving Rahul Gandhi’s proposed speech.

Published

on

PM Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not deliver his scheduled reply to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s address in the Lok Sabha today after sustained Opposition protests led to multiple adjournments of the House.

The disruption followed an escalation of tensions linked to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s proposed speech and the suspension of eight Opposition MPs a day earlier. The situation worsened after remarks made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey during the proceedings.

Dispute over references to books sparks fresh ruckus

The controversy intensified when Nishikant Dubey responded to Rahul Gandhi’s demand to speak on national security and references to the unpublished memoirs of former Army chief General MM Naravane. Dubey said that while Gandhi wanted to quote from an unpublished book, he himself had brought several books that, according to him, made claims about the Gandhi family.

As Dubey began listing these books and their contents, strong protests erupted from Opposition members. Krishna Prasad Tenneti, who was presiding over the House at the time, cited Rule 349, which restricts members from reading out books, newspapers, or letters unless directly related to parliamentary business. Despite repeated warnings, the matter remained unresolved, leading to another adjournment.

Rahul Gandhi accuses government of silencing debate

Earlier in the day, Rahul Gandhi alleged that he was being prevented from speaking on an issue of national importance. He claimed the government was uncomfortable with references to General Naravane’s memoirs, which he said discussed the handling of the 2020 China border crisis.

In a social media post, Gandhi said he intended to present the Prime Minister with a book authored by the former Army chief, adding that some cabinet ministers had even questioned the existence of the book. He also wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after the suspension of eight Opposition MPs, alleging that parliamentary debate was being curtailed.

After it became clear that the Prime Minister would not speak in the House today, Gandhi posted that PM Modi had avoided Parliament because he was “scared” to face the truth. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra echoed the allegation, claiming the Prime Minister was unwilling to enter the House.

Proceedings disrupted throughout the day

Lok Sabha proceedings were first adjourned until 2 pm amid loud protests over the issue linked to Naravane’s memoirs. Even after the House reconvened, disruptions continued, preventing normal business from resuming.

Later, Congress MPs staged a demonstration outside the Parliament complex, demanding that Rahul Gandhi be allowed to speak on the President’s address.

Continue Reading

India News

President’s Rule revoked in Manipur as NDA set to form new government

President’s Rule has been withdrawn in Manipur nearly a year after its imposition, paving the way for a new NDA-led government under Yumnam Khemchand Singh.

Published

on

President rule invoked in Manipur

President’s Rule has been revoked in Manipur nearly a year after it was imposed, clearing the way for the formation of a new government led by the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The decision came hours before the scheduled oath ceremony of the new council of ministers.

Chief minister-designate Yumnam Khemchand Singh is set to take oath later this evening, along with other NDA legislators who will formally join the new government. The revocation brings an end to central rule that had been in place since February 2025, following the resignation of then chief minister N Biren Singh.

Assembly status during central rule

During the period of President’s Rule, the Manipur Legislative Assembly remained in suspended animation, meaning it was neither functioning nor dissolved. With the restoration of the elected government, legislative activity is expected to resume.

Khemchand Singh, 61, belongs to the Meitei community. Two deputy chief ministers have been named to reflect Manipur’s ethnic diversity. Nemcha Kipgen, from the Kuki community, and Losii Dikho, from the Naga community, are set to take charge as deputy chief ministers.

According to people with direct knowledge of the matter, Nemcha Kipgen is likely to take oath from a Manipur government guesthouse in Delhi.

Key portfolios and leadership choices

Seven-time MLA from Bishnupur district, Govindas Konthoujam, said he has been entrusted with the Home portfolio. Emphasising stability and law and order, he said he remains committed to serving the state with discipline and restraint.

Sources said Khemchand Singh is viewed within the party as a non-polarising leader who is acceptable across internal factions at a time of political transition. While he is yet to be tested in governance, he is seen as a steady administrative choice capable of providing organisational discipline and continuity amid uncertainty.

Uneasy peace continues in Manipur

The formation of the new government comes against the backdrop of continued tension in Manipur, nearly three years after violence erupted between the Meitei community in the valley areas and the Kuki tribes in several hill districts.

A section of Kuki groups has been demanding a separate administrative arrangement, with negotiations involving multiple insurgent groups operating under two umbrella organisations that are signatories to the suspension of operations agreement.

In recent weeks, some Kuki civil society organisations have stated they would not participate in the Manipur government and have distanced themselves from Kuki MLAs expected to join the new administration.

A day before the announcement of the new government, Kuki leader Paolienlal Haokip posted on X that representatives of the Kuki Zo people could not take part in leadership selection without justice and a written commitment for political settlement.

Diverging demands from communities

Meitei civil society groups have maintained that all internally displaced persons should be allowed to return home safely, even as dialogue continues. However, Kuki leaders have insisted that a political solution in the form of a separate administration must come first, before discussions on rehabilitation and return from relief camps.

Meitei leaders have countered this position, arguing that the demand reflects an ethnocentric territorial claim and that humanitarian issues should be addressed alongside negotiations, as no area is exclusively inhabited by a single community.

Continue Reading

India News

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla’s mother injured in hit-and-run incident in Pune

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla has alleged that his mother was deliberately hit by a car in Pune and left critically injured. She is scheduled to undergo surgery.

Published

on

Shehzad Punawalla

BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla has claimed that his mother was seriously injured after being struck by a car in an alleged hit-and-run incident in Pune. The accused reportedly fled the spot after the incident, leaving her critically injured.

According to Poonawalla, the incident occurred a few hours earlier and his mother is scheduled to undergo surgery. He appealed to authorities to identify and arrest the person responsible at the earliest.

Sharing details on social media, Poonawalla said an unidentified individual ran a car over his mother and escaped from the scene. He requested prayers for her recovery and expressed anguish over the incident, describing his mother as a compassionate person whose injury had deeply shaken him.

He also tagged Pune City Police, senior police officials, and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, urging strict legal action against the accused and ensuring that the person does not evade accountability.

CCTV footage surfaces, police complaint to be filed

In a related development, Poonawalla’s brother and political analyst Tehseen Poonawalla shared CCTV footage on social media that allegedly shows the moment their mother was hit by the vehicle.

Tehseen stated that his mother, a senior citizen, had stepped out of the car while it was being refuelled when the incident occurred. He alleged that the act appeared deliberate and said efforts were underway to identify the vehicle involved.

He further confirmed that a police complaint would be filed and questioned how the vehicle could have hit his mother when she was standing at a distance from the car.

Fractured hip, surgery planned

Providing an update on her medical condition, Tehseen said their mother had suffered a fractured hip and would require surgical intervention. She has been admitted to hospital and doctors are monitoring her vitals ahead of surgery.

He described the incident as infuriating and heartbreaking, adding that his mother would need a rod implant following the hip surgery. He also said he had spoken to senior police officials and expressed hope that swift action would be taken.

Authorities have not yet issued an official statement on the incident. Further details are awaited as investigations continue.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com