Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of adultery. Adultery, in this context, refers to a married person engaging in voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse, without the consent or connivance of their spouse. Here’s an explanation of Section 497:
IPC Section 497 – Adultery
- Definition: Section 497 defines adultery as sexual intercourse between a man and a woman when:
- The man is aware that the woman is married.
- The sexual intercourse is conducted with the woman without the consent or connivance of her husband.
- Exclusively Punishment for Men: Notably, Section 497 only penalizes men who engage in adultery. Women involved in adultery are not considered offenders under this section.
- Penalty: A man found guilty of adultery under Section 497 could be punished with imprisonment for up to five years or with a fine or both.
Historical Context of Adultery
Section 497 had been a subject of controversy due to its gender-specific nature, as it treated men as offenders while absolving women from legal liability in cases of adultery. Critics argued that the provision was discriminatory and violated the principle of gender equality.
Supreme Court Ruling (2018)
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 as unconstitutional in September 2018. The court held that the provision was arbitrary and discriminated against men. The judgment emphasized the importance of individual autonomy and the right to privacy in matters of consensual sexual relations between adults.
Impact of the Ruling:
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively decriminalized adultery in India and recognized that adults have the freedom to make choices about their personal relationships. It marked a significant step toward promoting gender equality and individual autonomy in matters of personal relationships.
It’s important to note that while Section 497 no longer exists as a criminal offense in India, issues related to infidelity or adultery may still have legal implications in civil matters, such as divorce proceedings and family law cases. The ruling did not affect the civil consequences or remedies available to spouses in cases of infidelity.
Certainly, here are some notable case laws related to adultery in India, including cases that preceded the striking down of Section 497:
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018):
- This case played a crucial role in challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 of the IPC. The Supreme Court, in this case, held that Section 497 violated the right to equality and dignity, as it treated women as property of their husbands. The judgment eventually led to the decriminalization of adultery.
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954):
- This case is significant because it was one of the early challenges to Section 497. The court, in this case, upheld the validity of Section 497, stating that it did not violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
V. Revathi v. Union of India (1988):
- While this case primarily dealt with the issue of maintenance for a divorced wife, it raised questions about Section 497. The court did not strike down the section but acknowledged its discriminatory nature.
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State (2003):
- In this case, the Delhi High Court observed that Section 497 was discriminatory but held that it was bound by the earlier Yusuf Abdul Aziz case. The court called for legislative changes to rectify the discrimination.
Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985):
- While this case primarily focused on the constitutional validity of Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which dealt with who could file a complaint in adultery cases, it also touched upon the issue of Section 497. The court held that the provision did not violate the right to equality but criticized its discriminatory nature.
Amit Sibal v. Mrs. Kishore Batra (2017):
- This case, which occurred before the decriminalization of adultery, highlighted the issue of who could file a complaint under Section 497. The court ruled that the husband of the adulterous wife could not file a complaint under the section.
