Adultery must remain a crime, says govt in SC

NEWDELHI: CENTRE OPPOSED STRIKING DOWN PENAL PROVISION RELATED TO ADULTERY, ARGUING SUCH A MOVE WOULD DESTROY INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has opposed striking down the penal provision related to adultery from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), saying such a move would destroy the institution of marriage.

The government spelt out its stand in response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the IPC that punishes only men for adultery. An Italy-based NRI, Joseph Shine, challenged the provision, terming it unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The law prescribes a jail term of up to five years, a fine or both for men. Shine questioned the gender bias in the colonial-era law.

“Section 497 IPC supports, safeguards and protects the institution of marriage,” read the Centre’s affidavit in response to Shine’s petition. “It is submitted that striking down Section 497 of IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC (criminal procedure code)will prove to be detrimental to intrinsic Indian ethos which gives paramount importance to the institution and sanctity of marriage,” the ministry of home affairs affidavit added.

An SC bench led by CJI Dipak Misra on January 5 referred the PIL to a Constitution bench, observing that although criminal law was based on gender neutrality, the concept was absent in the section being challenged. It said the provision dented the inde- pendent identity of women. The court agreed to take a relook at its earlier verdicts, upholding the validity of the law. Two judgements, one in 1954 and the other in 2011, had declared that the section did not violate right to equality and that a woman in an illicit relationship with a married man could not be punished.

The NDA government said in its affidavit: “Decriminalisation of adultery will result in weakening the sanctity of marital bond. Striking down the section would erode the sanctity of marriage and the fabric of society at large.”

Invoking a recent nine-judge Constitution Bench verdict that declared right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner contended, “Sexual privacy is an integral part of right to privacy.”

“Adultery is an archaic notion of law. it does not criminalizes extra-marital relationships of husbands with unmarried women but criminalises all sexual relationships of married woman outside marriage . Why should only women be burdened with protecting the sanctity of marriage,” senior advocate Gyanant Singh said .