NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday will pronounce its judgement on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the penal law on adultery.A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra on August 8 had reserved its verdict after Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for the Centre, concluded her arguments.The hearing in the case by the bench, which also comprised justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, went on for six days and had commenced on August 1.The Centre had favoured retention of penal law on adultery, saying that it is a public wrong which causes mental and physical injury to the spouse, children and the family. "It is an action willingly and knowingly done with the knowledge that it would hurt the spouse, the children and the family. Such intentional action which impinges on the sanctity of marriage and sexual fidelity encompassed in marriage, which forms the backbone of the Indian society, has been classified and defined by the Indian State as a criminal offence in exercise of its Constitution powers," the Centre had said. Section 497 of the 158-year-old Indian Penal Code 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. "On January 5, the apex court had referred to a five-judge Constitution bench the plea challenging the validity of the penal law on adultery.The court had taken a prima facie view that though the criminal law proceeded on "gender neutrality", the concept was absent in Section 497.<doc-sep>Here are the highlights of the verdict: SC rules adultery is not a crime, scraps Section 497 of IPC Watch: SC rules adultery is not a crime Adultery not a criminal offence anymore, Supreme Court strikes down Section 497 of IPC NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday declared as unconstitutional the penal provision on adultery , saying it was manifestly arbitrary and dents the individuality of women.A five-judge Constitution bench was unanimous in holding Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code , dealing with the offence of adultery, as unconstitutional and struck down the penal provision. The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra held that Section 497 is unconstitutional. The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar said: "We declare Section 497 IPC and Section 198 of CrPC dealing with prosecution of offences against marriage as unconstitutional". * CJI Dipak Misra said adultery can be a ground for divorce but not a criminal offence. * CJI Misra and justice Khanwilkar said mere adultery cannot be a crime, but if any aggrieved spouse commits suicide because of life partner's adulterous relation, then if evidence produced, it could be treated as an abetment to suicide. * The bench held that adultery can be treated as civil wrong for dissolution of marriage. * Delivering its judgement, the SC said that unequal treatment of women invites the wrath of the Constitution. * The five-judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra said the beauty of the Constitution is that it includes "the I, me and you". * CJI also said that equality is the governing principle of a system and that a husband is not the master of the wife. * The CJI said section 497 of the IPC is manifestly arbitrary the way it deals with women. * Adultery might not be cause of unhappy marriage, it could be result of an unhappy marriage, the CJI said. * Justice R F Nariman agreed with CJI Misra and justice Khanwilkar to term section 497 an archaic provision, which is unconstitutional. * Justice D Y Chandrachud called adultery offence as a relic of past and said section 497 is destructive of woman's dignity and self respect as it treats woman as a chattel of husband. * Justice Chandrachud, in a section of judgement titled 'good wife', said in the most private zone choice is important and sexuality cannot be dissected from desire. Section 497 deprives women their choice about sexuality and hence it is unconstitutional. * Justice Chandrachud added that a woman after marriage does not pledge her sexual autonomy to her husband and depriving her of choice to have consensual sex with any one outside marriage cannot be curbed. * Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge in the constitution bench, too termed Section 497 as unconstitutional. * However, justice Malhotra said adultery is a moral wrong contrasting it with justice Chandrachud's view that each spouse in marriage don't mortgage their sexual autonomy to each other.<doc-sep>'Husband is not the master': SC strikes down law making adultery a criminal offence The five-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra termed IPC Section 497 as “archaic” and said that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. news Adultery The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which said that adultery is a criminal offence. The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, termed it as “archaic” and observed that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which provides equality before law. Reading out the judgement for himself and Justice Khanwilkar, CJI Dipak Misra stated that adultery can be a ground for civil issues, including the dissolution of marriage, but it cannot be a criminal offence and called Section 497 of the IPC “manifestly arbitrary”. They said that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. “It's time to say husband is not the master,” he said. He said that adultery in itself cannot be considered a crime, but if an aggrieved spouse takes their own life because of their partners’ adultery, it could be treated as abetment to suicide. Concurring with the judgment CJI Dipak Misra and Justice Khanwilkar, Justice RF Nariman termed Section 497 as an archaic provision which is unconstitutional and struck it down. Justice DY Chandrachud said that adultery is “a relic of the past” and that Section 497 is destructive of a woman's dignity and self-respect. "A woman after marriage does not pledge her sexual autonomy to her husband and depriving her of choice to have consensual sex with anyone outside marriage cannot be curbed," Justice DY Chandrachud observed. In December 2017, Joseph Shine filed a petition challenging the section. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, had referred the petition to a five-judge Constitution Bench, admitting that the law does seem to be archaic. When the matter came up during the Section 377 hearing, the Centre filed its response. Joseph Shine’s petition challenged Section 497 IPC and Section 198 of CrPC, on the grounds that it is discriminatory against men. Section 497 states: “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, and shall be punished with imprisonment.” In simple words, adultery is defined as a person having sex with a man’s wife without taking prior consent from the husband. The law only applies to men – women can neither be charged with adultery, nor can they be the complainant. Activists had cried foul, saying the law treated women as property with no agency of their own to speak of. Experts also say that Section 497 is in contravention to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees a right to life and liberty for all individuals. This includes the right to dignity, privacy and autonomy. In 2017, in a major verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right.<doc-sep>Times View The Supreme Court has been wise in decriminalising adultery. This newspaper has consistently held that while many may view adultery as morally problematic, this is a matter of personal morality and the state should stay out of it. We had called for IPC Section 497 to be scrapped on these grounds and pointed out that “using laws to enforce faithfulness in marriage is as absurd as making it legally mandatory for husband and wife to love each other”. This judgment is welcome also because it does away with a law that was blatantly patriarchal and treated married women as the property of their husbands. Even the British, who introduced it in India, did away with it in their own country as far back as 1857. Justice Chandrachud’s judgment, in particular, is clear that denying sexual autonomy to women is unconstitutional and unacceptable. We hope the government will now show good sense in accepting the verdict and not seek a review. Supreme Court rules adultery is not a crime, scraps Section 497 of IPC Watch: SC rules adultery is not a crime Adultery not a criminal offence anymore, Supreme Court strikes down Section 497 of IPC NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as unconstitutional the 158-year-old Section 497 of IPC that punished a married man for the offence of adultery if he had sexual relations with a married woman "without the consent or connivance of her husband", but said adultery could continue to be a ground for divorce. "When parties to a marriage lose their moral commitment to the relationship, it creates a dent in the marriage and it will depend upon the parties how to deal with the situation. Some may exonerate and live together and some may seek divorce... A punishment is unlikely to establish commitment," a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra said, rebutting the argument that Section 497 worked as a deterrent against spouses going astray.While saying that adultery could continue to be a ground for aggrieved spouses to seek divorce from their adulterous partners, the court said if one of the spouses committed suicide because of the adulterous nature of her/his partner, then the culprit could be proceeded against for the criminal offence of abetting suicide.The court tested Section 497 on the touchstone of constitutional provisions dealing with right to equality and guarantees against arbitrariness and discrimination, with Justices Chandrachud and Malhotra using privacy, individual's autonomy and personal choice as yardsticks of legality.The decision rejected a conception of women as actors with no agency of their own, mere "chattel". Thursday's decision puts India on par with many European countries, China, Japan, Australia and Brazil where adultery is no longer a criminal offence.CJI Misra, writing the judgment for himself and Justice Khanwilkar, said Section 497 violated right to equality as it punished only the married man while exonerating the ‘partner in crime', the married woman, who could not even be punished for being the abettor.In addition, the section treated the woman, with whom the married man had sexual intercourse, as a chattel of her husband as it was not an offence of adultery if the latter consented or connived for his wife's adulterous relationship with another man, the CJI said.Refusing to buy the Centre's argument to uphold validity of the provision on the ground that it was to protect the sanctity of marriage, the CJI said the section did not rope in those married men for adultery if they had sexual relationship outside the marriage with unmarried women, divorcees or widows.Moreover, the provision specifying that only the husband of the married woman could be the aggrieved person to file complaint of adultery against the adulterous married man made the SC say, "The offence and the deeming definition of an aggrieved person, as we find, is absolutely and manifestly arbitrary as it does not even appear to be rational and it can be stated with emphasis that it confers a licence on the husband to deal with life as he likes which is extremely excessive and disproportionate. ""That women are treated as subordinate to men inasmuch as it lays down that there is connivance or consent of the man, there is no offence. This treats the woman as a chattel. It treats her as the property of man and totally subservient to the will of the master. It is a reflection of the social dominance that was prevalent when the penal provision was drafted (in 1860)," the CJI said.Hoping to bring about a change in the societal mindset, CJI Misra said, "We are of the view that there cannot be a patriarchal monarchy over the daughter or, for that matter, husband's monarchy over wife. That apart, there cannot be a community exposition of masculine dominance. "Justice Nariman rescinded Section 497 because it said it was not adultery if the married woman's husband approved her adulterous relationship with another married man. "This can only be on the paternalistic notion of a woman being likened to chattel, for if one is to use the chattel or is licensed to use the chattel by the ‘licensor', namely the husband, no offence is committed," he said. "This archaic law has long outlived its purpose and does not square with today's constitutional morality, in that the very object with which it was made has since become manifestly arbitrary, having lost its rationale long ago and having become in today's day utterly irrational. On this basis alone, the law deserves to be struck down," he added.Justice Chandrachud took a broader view and said, "This court has recognised sexual privacy as a natural right, protected under the Constitution. To shackle the sexual freedom of a woman and allow the criminalisation of consensual relationships is denial of this right. Section 497 denudes a married woman of her agency and identity, employing force of law to preserve a patriarchal conception of marriage which is at odds with constitutional morality."<doc-sep>
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday declared that adultery is not a crime and struck down the anti-adultery law, saying it was unconstitutional as it dented the individuality of women and treated them as "chattel of husbands".The apex court's five-judge Constitution bench was unanimous in striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery and holding it as manifestly arbitrary, archaic law which is violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women.Section 497 of the 158-year-old 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. "Adultery was punishable by a maximum five years in jail or fine or both.A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra said that unequal treatment of women invites the wrath of the Constitution.The top court, which held adultery as a relic of the past, said the autonomy is intrinsic in dignified human existence and Section 497 denudes women from making choices.The apex court pronounced four sets of concurring judgments to declare penal provision on Adultery and section 198 of CrPC dealing with prosecution of offences against marriage as unconstitutional. "We declare Section 497 IPC and Section 198 of CrPC dealing with prosecution of offences against marriage as unconstitutional," said the Chief Justice, who wrote the judgement for himself and Justice Khanwilkar, adding that any provision treating women with inequality is not constitutional and it's time to say that "husband is not the master of woman".Justice Malhotra, the lone woman judge on the bench, said Section 497 is clear violation of fundamental rights granted in the Constitution and there is no justification for continuation of the provision.Justice Nariman termed Section 497 as archaic law and concurred with the CJI and Justice Khanwilkar, saying that the penal provision is violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women.Justice Chandrachud said Section 497 destroys and deprives women of dignity and is destructive of women's dignity, self-respect as it treats women as "chattel of husbands".The CJI said adultery dents the individuality of women and it is not a crime in countries like China, Japan and Australia.Adultery might not be cause of unhappy marriage, it could be result of an unhappy marriage, Justice Misra said.The CJI began reading the judgement by saying the beauty of the Constitution is that it includes "the I, me and you".He said equality is the governing parameter of the Constitution and section 497 of the IPC is manifestly arbitrary the way it deals with women.The bench held that adultery can be treated as civil wrong for dissolution of marriage.There can't be any social licence which destroys a home, the CJI said, but added that adultery should not be a criminal offence.The court said adultery can be a ground for civil wrong, a ground for divorce but not a criminal offence.Justice Chandrachud said autonomy is intrinsic in dignified human existence and Section 497 denudes women from making choices and held adultery as a relic of past.Legislature has imposed a condition on sexuality of women by making adultery as offence, he said, adding that section 497 is denial of substance of equality.The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar said mere adultery cannot be a crime, but if any aggrieved spouse commits suicide because of life partner's adulterous relation, then if evidence is produced, it could be treated as an abatement to suicide.