Why in news?
The Supreme Court has decided to re-examine the offence of adultery as dealt in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
What are the contentious provisions in Section 497?
- Section 497 of IPC criminalises the offence of adultery.
- It punishes the “outsider” who breaks into the matrimonial home through illicit relationship with one of the spouses.
- Contentiously, only the erring man is liable to be punished for the offence.
- The provisions give only husbands the exclusive right as an aggrieved party to prosecute the adulterer in a case involving his wife.
- However, a similar right has not been conferred on a wife to prosecute the woman with whom her husband has committed adultery.
- Also, the provision does not confer any right on the wife to prosecute her husband for adultery.
- Further, if the husband of the woman gives his consent for the sexual affair with another man, no offence lies.
- The law also does not take into account cases where the husband has sexual relations with an unmarried woman.
What are the concerns?
- The provisions grant relief to the wife by treating her only as a victim going by the wide spread societal presumption.
- There are questions as to why the prosecution under Section 497 completely dependent on the husband's word.
- So much so that a woman can enter into an adulterous relationship if her husband consents.
- Section 497 demeans a woman to the extent of her being considered the husband's "commodity".
What was the court's earlier stance?
- A three-judge bench had, in 1985, dismissed the argument that Section 497 was discriminatory.
- The judgment said a wife could always initiate civil action against her unfaithful husband.
- The court agreed that “a man seducing the wife of another” was the most seen and felt evil in society.
What is the significance of SC's move?
- Responding to a PIL, the SC had issued a notice to the Centre saying Sec 497 appeared to be “archaic” and not gender-neutral.
- The decision of Court to re-examine the offence is an admission that it had earlier gone wrong in denying the discriminatory nature of the law.
Source: The Hindu
