English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

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

Published

8 years ago

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]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Bill against paper leaks eclipsed by Opposition push for Amit Shah reply

Published

25 mins ago

on

July 27, 2026

By

Amit Shah

The Monsoon Session of Parliament witnessed Opposition-Government scenes on Monday as Union Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha.

The Bill aims to strengthen laws against examination paper leaks and organized cheating following the NEET-UG 2026 controversy.

During the discussions, the Opposition Congress demanded Home Minister Amit Shah’s reply to allegations of police excesses on July 20 during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) march to Parliament. Over 100 students were treated for injuries ranging from fractures to pellet wounds. CRPF personnel have confirmed seven rounds of pellets were fired and five rounds were fired at the students.

Congress leader Pawan Khera said such force should not have been used against the students and the Home Minister must reply to the allegations. Following disruptions, the House was adjourned several times.

The legislation seeks to impose stricter penalties for paper leaks, organized examination fraud, and other unfair practices. It also provides for faster investigations, time-bound trials, and the establishment of a STF to investigate major examination-related offenses. According to the government, the amendments are intended to improve transparency, protect the credibility of public examinations, and restore students’ confidence in the system.

The Congress and several Opposition parties demanded a detailed discussion in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, arguing that the government must be held accountable for both the examination irregularities and the police response.

The debate comes days after the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, following weeks of nationwide protests over paper leaks and examination malpractice. While the Centre has announced reforms and introduced the amendment Bill, Opposition leaders maintain that legislative changes alone are insufficient without fixing responsibility for the controversy and the police action against students.

The government defended its response, stating that it has initiated investigations into examination fraud, introduced stricter legal provisions, and taken steps to strengthen the security of public examinations. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju urged MPs to participate in the debate and allow the House to function smoothly instead of disrupting proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

E20 Janta Party set to follow in CJP footsteps

Published

1 hour ago

on

July 27, 2026

By

Excise duty on petrol

After the success of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a new outfit, calling itself the E20 Janta Party, has come into being.

It trended across social media platforms on Thursday after the CJP claimed victory following the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, with supporters applauding the outcome as a major milestone in the ongoing student-led movement over alleged NEET-UG examination irregularities.

Thousands of posts, memes and videos flooded social media with users celebrating what they described as the growing influence of the CJP-led agitation. The term “E20 Janta Party” quickly gained traction on X and other platforms as motorists worried over the mixing of ethanol in petrol claimed they would themselves stage protests a la CJP.

Motorists all over India have been protesting against the fuel mixture given that their cars and motorcycles bought earlier had not been tuned for such increase in ethanol ratio. Some have claimed damage, ranging from engine damage to lower mileage. The government has not conceded the engine damage claim but has accepted that mileage may be compromised. Further, they have been agitating for a lowered fuel price for E20 since it has 20% ethanol but the government has shown willingness only to lower prices for the E85 blend which is being introduced slowly.

The public outpouring of support for the anti-NEET protests seems to have egged the anti-E20 people to come out of the woodwork though they have been vocal on social media. The Delhi taxi drivers association is also believed to have lent support to this cause. Transporters are also expected to join the protest slated on August 4 year since there are moves afoot to introduce isobutanol-diesel blend this year.

During the protests at Jantar Mantar, many activists had raised the ethanol issue time and again targeting Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari, an overzealous advocate for ethanol blending.

Continue Reading

India News

Parliament Monsoon Session 2026: Bill against paper leaks to be introduced in Lok Sabha today

The Lok Sabha will introduce and consider the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, proposing stricter punishment, fast-track courts and stronger safeguards against paper leaks.

Published

4 hours ago

on

July 27, 2026

By

The Lok Sabha is set to take up the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 for consideration and passage on Monday as the Centre moves to tighten laws against paper leaks and examination-related fraud.

Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh will seek the House’s permission to introduce the Bill before moving it for consideration and passing during the day’s legislative business.

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha are scheduled to begin at 11 am with the Question Hour, during which ministers will respond to listed oral questions.

Bill proposes stricter action against paper leaks

The proposed amendment aims to strengthen transparency and integrity in the public examination system through stricter legal provisions while safeguarding the interests of students.

Among its major provisions are:

  • Imprisonment of up to 10 years for those found guilty.
  • A fine of up to Rs.10 crore.
  • Confiscation of assets of convicted offenders.
  • A mechanism to ensure verdicts in such cases are delivered within three months through fast-track courts.

The proposed changes follow the Union Cabinet’s approval of the legislation and related measures aimed at tackling paper leaks and examination fraud with stricter punishment and expedited trials.

Supreme Court judges amendment Bill also on agenda

Apart from the anti-paper leak legislation, the Lok Sabha is also scheduled to consider the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026.

Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal will move the Bill for consideration. It seeks to further amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.

Ministers to present implementation reports

Several Union ministers are also expected to place statements before the House on the implementation of recommendations made by various Parliamentary Standing Committees.

Among them:

  • Gajendra Singh Shekhawat will present an update on recommendations related to the Ministry of Tourism.
  • Jayant Chaudhary will report on recommendations concerning the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.
  • Pankaj Chaudhary will table a statement on recommendations relating to the Ministry of Finance.
  • Suresh Gopi will present implementation updates on recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Petroleum and Natural Gas.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com