Introduction

• This case is a landmark judgment wherein it was held that S. 497 of IPC is unconstitutional.

Facts

• The case challenges the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) that criminalized adultery, and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which treats the husband as an aggrieved person in cases of adultery.
  • Section 497 IPC made adultery an offense only with respect to a man who has sexual intercourse with the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of the husband. The wife is not punishable as an abettor.
  • Section 198 CrPC provides that no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of IPC (which includes adultery) except upon a complaint filed by the husband of the woman.
• The petitioner argued that these provisions discriminate against women, treat them as subordinate to men, and violate Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution which guarantee equality, non-discrimination and protection of life and personal liberty.

Issues Involved

• Whether Section 497 of IPC is constitutionally valid?
• Whether Section 198(2) is constitutionally valid?

Observation

• Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalized adultery was held unconstitutional as it is manifestly arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
• The court held that the section was based on gender stereotypes and treated women as the property of their husbands. By criminalizing adultery and punishing only men, it perpetuated subordination of women and denied them sexual autonomy, agency, dignity and privacy in a matrimonial relationship.
• The principles of constitutional morality, substantive equality and dignity require that married women are not viewed as property of their husbands. Human sexuality and sexual autonomy are essential aspects of one's identity and personality.
• The notion of providing "protective discrimination" to married women through section 497 was unconstitutional paternalism, as it served to perpetuate subordination rather than address it.
• While Parliament has the law-making power, treating adultery as a criminal offense would result in the State entering the impermissible realm of extreme privacy related to the matrimonial relationship between husband and wife.
• In view of these conclusions, the Supreme Court struck down section 497 as unconstitutional, overruling its earlier judgments.
• Section 198(2) of CrPC, which treated the husband as an aggrieved person in offenses under section 497, was also held unconstitutional as being violative of substantive equality.

Conclusion

• In essence, the unanimous verdict decriminalized the offence of adultery and recognized constitutional principles of gender equality, sexual autonomy, dignity and privacy in matrimonial relationships. The earlier judgments treating adultery as a criminal offence were overruled as being based on unconstitutional foundations.