Decriminalization Of Adultery And Social Reforms
What is Adultery?
Adultery generally refers to consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and someone who is not their spouse. In India, it was earlier treated as a criminal offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
What Did Section 497 IPC Say?
A man could be punished for having sexual relations with a married woman, without the consent or connivance of her husband.
The woman was not punishable, even as an abettor.
Punishment could be up to 5 years of imprisonment, or fine, or both.
The law treated women as property of their husbands and was silent about a wife’s right to prosecute her husband or the other woman.
🔹 Why Was It Problematic?
Gender Discrimination:
Only men could be punished. Women had no say in filing complaints, nor could they be prosecuted.
Violation of Personal Autonomy:
The law was based on outdated morality and patriarchal notions of marriage and sexuality.
Not Equality Before Law:
Contravened Article 14 (Equality), Article 15 (Non-discrimination), and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
No Crime Without Victim:
Adultery, being consensual between adults, lacked the "harm" element necessary for criminalization.
🔹 Key Judgments on Adultery
Here are six important cases that shaped the legal discourse around adultery in India, culminating in its decriminalization.
1. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954)
Citation: AIR 1954 SC 321
Facts:
Yusuf Aziz challenged the constitutionality of Section 497 IPC, claiming it violated Article 14 (Equality before law) because it discriminated on the basis of sex.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld Section 497, stating that Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women and children.
Significance:
This judgment affirmed the constitutionality of a gender-biased law, laying the foundation for future criticism.
2. Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985)
Citation: AIR 1985 SC 1618
Facts:
Petitioner challenged the law for:
Not punishing women.
Not allowing a wife to prosecute her adulterous husband.
Violating gender equality.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court refused to strike down Section 497, stating that the law preserved the sanctity of marriage and did not see it as discriminatory.
Significance:
The Court maintained the old moral view of marriage, but dissent around the law grew louder in society.
3. V. Revathi v. Union of India (1988)
Citation: AIR 1988 SC 835
Facts:
Challenge to Section 198(2) CrPC, which prevented wives from prosecuting their husbands or the other woman in cases of adultery.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the law again, calling it a "legislative wisdom to shield women" from being punished or dragged into criminal proceedings.
Significance:
Court maintained the law's discriminatory status, defending it as a protective measure for women, not an inequality.
4. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
Citation: (2019) 3 SCC 39
Landmark Case: Decriminalization of Adultery
Facts:
A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Joseph Shine challenged Section 497 IPC as being discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Arguments:
Violated Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Treated women as property of their husbands.
Imposed moral standards via criminal law.
Against personal autonomy and dignity.
Judgment (By a 5-judge Constitution Bench):
Unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional.
Held it violated Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 21 (dignity and personal liberty).
Called the law archaic, patriarchal, and gender-biased.
Stated adultery can be a ground for divorce, not a crime.
Held that criminal law should not invade private, consensual relationships.
Significance:
Historic ruling in favor of gender justice and personal liberty.
Set a precedent for a more progressive and inclusive interpretation of individual rights.
5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 1
Relevance:
Although not about adultery, this case decriminalized Section 377 IPC (homosexual relations) and emphasized constitutional morality over social morality.
Importance in Adultery Context:
Helped shape the idea that consensual sexual acts between adults in private should not be criminalized.
Strengthened arguments in Joseph Shine regarding autonomy and privacy.
6. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Right to Privacy Case
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Relevance:
This landmark ruling recognized Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
Impact on Adultery Case:
Used as a foundational argument in Joseph Shine to show that criminalizing adultery violated the right to privacy in marital and sexual relationships.
🔹 Social Reform After Decriminalization
Positive Impacts:
End of Patriarchal Law: Women are no longer treated as the property of their husbands.
Equality in Law: Both men and women are now equal in matters of personal morality.
Strengthening Privacy Rights: Emphasized that the State should not interfere in private consensual adult relationships.
Focus on Civil Remedies: Adultery remains a valid ground for divorce or separation under personal laws, but not a criminal offence.
Encourages Gender-Just Laws: Sets a precedent for reviewing other outdated, biased laws.
Concerns Raised:
Some groups argued that decriminalization may weaken the institution of marriage.
Others felt it might increase extra-marital affairs without fear of punishment.
But courts clarified that the civil consequences of adultery (e.g., divorce) still apply.
🔹 Summary
| Case Name | Year | Court's Stand |
|---|---|---|
| Yusuf Aziz | 1954 | Upheld Section 497 as protective of women |
| Sowmithri Vishnu | 1985 | Rejected challenges to male-only punishment |
| V. Revathi | 1988 | Upheld restriction on wife prosecuting husband |
| Joseph Shine | 2018 | Struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional |
| Navtej Johar | 2018 | Decriminalized same-sex acts; reinforced privacy |
| Puttaswamy | 2017 | Recognized right to privacy under Article 21 |
RELATED Blog
0 comments