Section 497 IPC and Adultery: Gender Equality and Legal Change in India

CopilotPerplexityChatGPTDeepSeekGoogleGrokGemini

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section had made adultery a criminal offence, but it was often criticised as being unfair and outdated. The ruling decriminalised adultery, marking a turning point in India’s approach to marriage, gender equality, and personal liberty.

Old Law under Section 497 IPC

Section 497 stated that a man could be punished for having a sexual relationship with a married woman without the consent of her husband. The woman involved was not seen as an offender but rather as a victim.

Key features of the old law:

• Only men could be prosecuted.
• The maximum punishment was five years imprisonment, or fine, or both.
• The husband of the woman had the power to file a complaint.
• The woman could not be punished or even treated as an equal participant.

This law reflected a time when women were seen as the property of men rather than as independent individuals.

Criticism of Section 497

• It was gender biased, targeting only men while assuming women had no agency.
• It treated marriage as ownership rather than a partnership.
• It conflicted with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
• It created unnecessary criminal liability in what is essentially a private matter between adults.

The 2018 Supreme Court Judgment

In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 as unconstitutional.

Important points from the judgment:

• Adultery may be a ground for divorce but not a criminal offence.
• Marriage does not mean the surrender of individual autonomy.
• Laws cannot treat women as property of their husbands.
• Adults have the right to privacy and personal choice.

The Court made it clear that criminal law cannot enter bedrooms, but family law (divorce, separation, custody) still recognises adultery as a valid reason for ending a marriage.

Example Scenarios Before and After 2018

• Before 2018: If a married woman had a relationship with another man, her husband could prosecute the man for adultery. The woman herself faced no criminal action.
• After 2018: The same act may still break a marriage and lead to divorce, but no criminal case can be filed. The law now treats it as a civil wrong, not a crime.

Punishment and Bailable Nature

• Under the old law, punishment could go up to five years of imprisonment.
• It was a bailable and non-cognizable offence meaning police could not arrest without a warrant, and bail was a right.
• After the 2018 judgment, there is no punishment under criminal law, since adultery is no longer a crime.

Impact of Decriminalisation

• For Men: No longer face criminal cases for adultery.
• For Women: Recognised as equal partners in marriage, not property.
• For Society: Encourages modern understanding of marriage as a bond of trust, not legal control.
• For Courts: Focus shifts from criminal trials to civil remedies like divorce, alimony, or custody disputes.

Section 497 IPC belonged to a colonial era mindset. By striking it down, the Supreme Court aligned Indian law with constitutional values of equality, dignity, and privacy. Adultery today is not a crime but remains a matrimonial offence, meaning it can still break marriages and affect divorce settlements. The ruling symbolises India’s journey toward gender justice and personal freedom.

FAQs

1. Can adultery still lead to jail in India?
No, after 2018 adultery is not a crime, so there is no imprisonment.

2. Can adultery be used as a reason for divorce?
Yes, family courts still treat it as a ground for divorce.

3. Did Section 497 punish women earlier?
No, women were considered victims under the old law, while only men faced punishment.

4. Is adultery completely legal in India now?
It is not a crime, but it is not legally accepted in marriage. It can still damage marital rights.

5. Why did the Supreme Court strike it down?
Because it was gender-biased, treated women as property, and violated constitutional rights.