Supreme Court: Why punish only man for adultery?

The Supreme Court on Thursday has raised question regarding the government’s stand in criminalising adultery and stated that it is unfair to punish only the man for infidelity.

A constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, disagreed the Centre’s view that validity of Section 497 in the IPC should be upheld because it protects sanctity of marriages and that it violates the right to equality.

“The government’s rationale that it will protect sanctity of marriage doesn’t look sound. Sanctity of marriage is gone even when a married man has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman but that’s not a crime. It is a crime only if a man has relations with a married woman and the husband of the woman complains,” observed Justice DY Chandrachud, one of the members of the five-judge bench. The judge maintained that to protect the sanctity of marriage, one cannot criminalise one gender.
The bench further observed that both partners are equally responsible for cherishing the sanctity of marriage.

“If a married woman has sexual intercourse with a married man other than her husband, why should the man alone be punished when woman too is equal partner to the crime? Such a distinction appears manifestly arbitrary,” it said. Justice Chandrachud drew a parallel between the offence of bigamy under Section 494 in the IPC and Section 497. He maintained the bigamy or polygamy are gender neutral concepts and both genders should be held responsible equally.

“This disctinction between Sections 494 and 497 itself can make Section 497 unconstitutional,” remarked Justice Chandrachud. The court also deliberated upon doctrine of severability so as to demerit, the discriminatory and arbitrary part of Section 497 while retaining the other portion. Justice Chandrachud, however, said that he was not sure when such a route can be taken when issues of personal liberty are involved. “We will have to examine if the entire Section 497 in the IPC should go,” he added.

During the hearing, Justice Indu Malhotra mainted that as “absurd” that the Section 497 which gives husbands the authority to forgive the other man and settle the case is ‘absurd’.

“It is absurd to treat a woman as a chattel. Adultery law reduces women into a chattel. There is no crime if a woman has an extramarital relationship with the consent or connivance of her husband. Are women the chattels of their husbands?” asked the bench, wondering how such a provision was drafted in the Indian Penal Code. News18 reports that the SC also cited a situation where a woman has been staying away from her estranged husband for years.

“If a woman then has a sexual intercourse with some other man, will it still lead to prosecution under Section 497 on a complaint by the estranged husband?” it asked. Section 497 makes adultery an offence only with respect to a man who has a relationship with somebody’s wife. The wife is considered neither adulterous nor an abettor in law, while the man faces a jail term of up to five years. Another peculiar aspect of Section 497 is the fact that the fulcrum of the offence is gone if consent or connivance of the husband can be established. The central government upheld the views that Section 497 was necessary in preserving marriage as a social construct and that the stability of the marriage cannot be ‘scorned’ upon.

Also Read: Supreme Court: FGM violates bodily rights of a child