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

Supreme Court flags risk of lawlessness, pauses FIRs against ED officers in Bengal case

The Supreme Court paused FIRs against ED officers in the Bengal I-PAC raid case, warning that obstruction of central probes could lead to lawlessness and seeking responses from the Centre and state.

Published

on

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a sharp rebuke to the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government, pausing FIRs lodged against officers of the Enforcement Directorate over searches linked to political consultancy I-PAC. The court said the case raises serious questions about interference in investigations and warned that failure to address them could lead to “lawlessness”.

A bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi sought replies from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel and Training, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress government on the ED’s plea. The central agency has also sought the suspension of Bengal Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and a probe by the CBI. The matter will be heard next on February 3.

The ruling follows a standoff between the ED and the Bengal government after the agency conducted searches at premises linked to I-PAC, which manages election campaigns for the Trinamool Congress, in connection with a corruption case.

Court questions obstruction of central probes

Recording its prima facie view, the Supreme Court said the petition raised a “serious issue” concerning investigations by central agencies and possible obstruction by state authorities.

“There are larger questions which emerge and if not answered shall lead to lawlessness. If central agencies are working bona fide to probe a serious offence, a question arises: Can they be obstructed by party activities?” the bench observed.

Earlier in the day, the court also expressed disturbance over scenes of chaos in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing related to the same dispute.

ED alleges interference, seeks action against top cops

The Enforcement Directorate accused the West Bengal administration of interfering with its searches and investigation. Appearing for the agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that evidence was removed from the residence of an I-PAC co-founder and argued that such actions could encourage state police officers to aid and abet obstruction. He sought suspension of senior police officials.

Describing the disruption in the Calcutta High Court on January 9, Mehta called it “mobocracy”, saying a group of lawyers unconnected to the case disrupted proceedings, forcing an adjournment. The bench asked whether the high court had been turned into a protest site, to which Mehta responded that messages had circulated calling lawyers to gather at a specific time.

Banerjee’s counsel defends move, cites election confidentiality

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, questioned the timing of the ED’s presence in Bengal ahead of Assembly elections. He said the last development in the coal scam case dated back to February 2024 and argued that I-PAC handled election-related work under a formal contract with the Trinamool Congress.

According to Sibal, election data stored at the premises was confidential and critical to campaign strategy. He said the party leadership had a right to protect such information.

Representing the Bengal government and the DGP, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi referred to the January 9 disruption but argued it could not justify parallel proceedings in different courts. The bench responded that emotions “cannot go out of hand repeatedly”.

Continue Reading

India News

Shashi Tharoor warns US tariffs on Iran could make Indian exports unviable

Shashi Tharoor has warned that cumulative US tariffs linked to Iran trade could rise to 75%, making most Indian exports to America commercially unviable.

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP and chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Shashi Tharoor has expressed serious concern over the United States’ latest tariff announcement targeting countries that continue to trade with Iran, warning that such measures could severely impact Indian exporters.

Reacting to the decision by US President Donald Trump to impose a 25% tariff on countries doing business with Iran, Tharoor said Indian companies would struggle to remain competitive if cumulative tariffs rise to 75%. He noted that India was already at a disadvantage compared to several regional competitors.

Tharoor said he had been troubled by the US tariff regime from the outset, pointing out that India was initially subjected to a 25% tariff while rival exporting nations in Southeast Asia were charged significantly lower rates. According to him, countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh faced tariffs ranging between 15% and 19% on labour-intensive goods exported to the US.

He explained that the situation had worsened with additional sanctions-linked duties. With the existing 25% tariff, another 25% related to Russia-linked sanctions, and a further 25% tied to Iran-related measures, the total burden could rise to 75%. At that level, Tharoor said, most Indian exports would no longer be commercially viable in the American market.

While noting that certain sectors such as pharmaceuticals may continue to export as they are not heavily impacted by sanctions, he warned that other key export categories would be hit hard. Tharoor described the situation as very serious and said it required urgent attention.

The Congress MP also expressed hope that the newly appointed US Ambassador could help facilitate progress on a bilateral trade agreement. He stressed that India could not afford to wait through the entire year for a deal and said an agreement should ideally be concluded in the first quarter of 2026.

Commenting on recent diplomatic engagements between India and the US, Tharoor underlined the need for faster consensus on trade issues. He said that at tariff levels as high as 75%, the idea of a meaningful trade deal loses relevance. According to him, a rate closer to what the UK enjoys with the US, around 15%, would reflect the respect due to a strategic partner.

Tharoor’s remarks come after President Trump announced that any country continuing business with Iran would face a 25% tariff on all trade with the United States, a move that has raised concerns among several trading partners.

Continue Reading

India News

Indian Army symbolizes selfless service and duty, says PM Modi on Army Day

PM Narendra Modi on Army Day praised the Indian Army as a symbol of selfless service and unwavering duty, saluting the courage and sacrifice of its soldiers.

Published

on

pm modi speech

On the occasion of Army Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday paid tribute to the Indian Army, describing its soldiers as a symbol of selfless service who protect the nation with unwavering resolve, even in the most challenging circumstances.

In a message shared on social media platform X, the prime minister said the country salutes the courage and steadfast commitment of Indian Army personnel. He noted that their dedication to duty inspires confidence and gratitude among citizens across the country.

“Our soldiers stand as a symbol of selfless service, safeguarding the nation with steadfast resolve, at times under the most challenging conditions,” PM Modi said. He added that the nation remembers with deep respect those who have laid down their lives while serving the country.

Army Day is observed every year on January 15 to commemorate a historic moment in India’s military history. The day marks the appointment of Field Marshal K M Cariappa as the first Indian Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army in 1949, when he took over from British officer General Sir F R R Bucher.

The occasion serves as a reminder of the Indian Army’s role in defending the country’s sovereignty and honour, as well as the sacrifices made by its personnel in the line of duty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com