‘Husband not master’: SC scraps adultery law

Apex court terms 158yrold law unconstitutional but says it will remain a ground for divorce

› Any system treating a woman with indignity, inequity and inequality or discrimination invites the wrath of the Constitution

Striking down adultery as a criminal offence, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the 19th century law that “treats a husband as the master” is unconstitutional but the offence is a “ground for divorce.”

“The adultery law is arbitrary and it offends the dignity of a woman,” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, who led the fivejudge Constitution Bench, said.

Quashing the archaic law, which has been on the statute book for more than 150 years, the court also said in a unanimous verdict, “...if it (adultery) is treated as a crime, there would be immense intrusion into the extreme privacy of the matrimonial sphere. It is better be left as a ground for divorce.”

Adultery is the second offence to be decriminalised by the top court in 20 days.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had decriminalised gay sex between consenting adults. Writing the judgment for himself and justice AM Khanwilkar, the CJI Misra said the law treats a woman as chattel.

“It treats her as the property of man and totally subservient to the will of the master. It is a reflection of the social dominance that was prevalent when the penal provision was drafted,” he said.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code made adultery an offence if a married man has sex with the

› ...adultery does not fit into the concept of a crime... It is better to be left as a ground for divorce CJI DIPAK MISRA, (writing for himself and justice AM Khanwilkar)

wife of another married man without his ‘connivance’ or ‘consent’. But only men and not wo– men could be prosecuted.

In his separate but concurring verdict, justice RF Nariman attacked the archaic law, saying, “What is therefore punished as adultery‘ is not adultery’ per se but the proprietary interest of a married man in his wife.”

Calling for gender equality, justice Nariman added, “A statutory provision belonging to the hoary past which demeans the status of a woman obviously falls foul of modern constitutional doctrine and must be struck down on this ground also.”

The BJP and the Congress both welcomed the decision of the top court, though many raised concerns over the implications of the judgment.