2018 (9) TMI 1792 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Section 497 IPC - offence of adultery - relief to the wife by treating her as a victim - Societal equality - gender neutrality - Held that - The State must follow the minimalist approach in the criminalization of offences, keeping in view the respect for the autonomy of the individual to make his/her personal choices - The right to live with dignity includes the right not to be subjected to public censure and punishment by the State except where absolutely necessary. In order to determine what conduct requires State interference through criminal sanction, the State must consider whether the civil remedy will serve the purpose. Where a civil remedy for a wrongful act is sufficient, it may not warrant criminal sanction by the State. It is declared that Section 497 is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution; Section 198(2) of the Cr.P.C. which contains the procedure for prosecution under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. shall be unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section 497.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Constitutionality of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
3. Gender discrimination and equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
4. Right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. The role of adultery as a criminal offense versus a civil wrong.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 497 of IPC:
Section 497 of the IPC criminalized adultery, punishing only the male involved in the act, while the woman was exempt from punishment. The Supreme Court scrutinized the provision in light of constitutional principles, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 21. The Court held that Section 497 was unconstitutional as it violated the right to equality and was based on archaic notions of a woman as the property of her husband. It was deemed discriminatory, as it did not allow a wife to prosecute her adulterous husband, nor did it recognize a woman's agency in the matter.

2. Constitutionality of Section 198 of CrPC:
Section 198 of the CrPC limited the right to file a complaint for adultery to the husband of the adulterous woman, reinforcing the gender bias inherent in Section 497. The Court found this provision unconstitutional as well, as it perpetuated gender inequality by denying women the right to file complaints and was thus violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

3. Gender Discrimination and Equality (Articles 14 and 15):
The Court emphasized that any legislation discriminating based on sex must pass the test of reasonable classification, which Section 497 failed. The provision was found to be based on gender stereotypes, treating women as passive and devoid of agency, which is contrary to the constitutional mandate of equality. The Court reiterated that the Constitution envisages a society where gender equality is paramount, and any law that perpetuates gender discrimination is unconstitutional.

4. Right to Privacy and Personal Liberty (Article 21):
The right to privacy, as recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, encompasses the autonomy of individuals to make personal choices, including those related to intimate relationships. The Court held that criminalizing adultery infringes upon the individual's right to privacy and personal liberty, as it involves an intrusion into the private sphere of marriage. The Court asserted that the state should not interfere in the private lives of individuals unless there is a compelling public interest.

5. Adultery as a Criminal Offense vs. Civil Wrong:
The Court examined whether adultery should be treated as a criminal offense or a civil wrong. It concluded that adultery, being a private matter between consenting adults, does not warrant criminal sanctions. The Court noted that while adultery can be a ground for divorce, it does not constitute a public wrong that justifies criminal punishment. The judgment emphasized that the state should adopt a minimalist approach in criminalizing conduct, respecting individual autonomy and privacy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198 of the CrPC unconstitutional, overruling previous judgments that upheld these provisions. The decision marked a significant step towards gender equality and the protection of individual rights, aligning with the evolving constitutional jurisprudence on privacy and personal liberty.

← Previous Next →