SC says law on adultery 'appears to be archaic', seeks Centre's response to petition challenging constitutional validity
The Supreme Court sought the Central government's response on a petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 497 of IPC, which deals with adultery.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Central government's response on a petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 497 of IPC. The provision provides for prosecution of the man in an adulterous relationship with a married woman and lets off the woman who is otherwise an equal participant in the extra-marital relationship.
PIL petitioner Joseph Shine has also challenged Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows the aggrieved husband of the married woman in adulterous relationship to file a complaint and not to the aggrieved wife of the man in adulterous relationship.
He has questioned the validity of these sections on the grounds of being violative of the Constitution's Articles 14 (Equality before law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty).
Observing that woman is equal to man in every field, the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud said that the provision "appears to be quite archaic".
"A time has come when the society must realise that a woman is equal to a man in every field. This provision, prima facie, appears to be quite archaic. When the society progresses and the rights are conferred, the new generation of thoughts spring, and that is why, we are inclined to issue notice," the court said in its order.
Noting that the offence is committed by both, by the married woman and the man she is in a relationship with, the court said that "one is liable for the criminal offence but the other is absolved".
"It seems to be based on a societal presumption," the court said in its order.
"Ordinarily the criminal law proceeds on gender neutrality but in this provision, as we perceive, the said concept is absent," the court said further noting that "it is to be seen when there is conferment of any affirmative right on women, can it go to the extent of treating them as the victim, in all circumstances, to the peril of the husband".
Referring to the language of Section 497 of the IPC , the court, in its order, said that it is perceivable from the language employed in the section that the "fulcrum of the offence is destroyed" once the consent or the connivance of the husband is established.
Viewed from the said scenario, the court in its order said, "the provision really creates a dent on the individual independent identity of a woman when the emphasis is laid on the connivance or the consent of the husband. This is tantamount to subordination of a woman where the Constitution confers equal status".
The court gave the Central government four weeks time to respond.
Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma asserted that not an inch of Assam's land could be encroached by the neighbouring state
The apex court also uplifted the rule where the General Body of the Consortium of National Law Universities on 12 June had asked all students to get vaccinated before appearing for the exam
The petition claims that the appointment of the panel was made in violation of Article 77, which states that every executive action or order of the Central government has to be taken or issued in the name of the President, and hence unconstitutional and illegal