Facts in the Case
- A was prosecuted under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 for having an extramarital relationship with B, a married woman.
- B, the married woman involved, was not prosecuted under this section.
- A pleads that the prosecution is discriminatory, as B is equally guilty but exempted from prosecution.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the prosecution under Section 497 IPC is discriminatory by punishing only the man (A) and exempting the woman (B).
- Whether the plea of discrimination violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- What is the legal position regarding the immunity granted to the woman under Section 497?
Principles Applied
1. Provision of Section 497 IPC (Before 2018)
- Section 497 criminalized adultery, punishing a man who has sexual relations with a married woman without her husband’s consent.
- The woman was not punishable under this provision; she was considered a victim rather than an offender.
- The rationale was based on the idea that the husband’s proprietary rights over his wife were violated.
2. Judicial Position on Discrimination
- The Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) struck down Section 497 as unconstitutional.
- The Court held that the law was gender discriminatory, violating the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21.
- It treated women as property of their husbands and imposed punishment only on men, which is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Judgment / Legal Position
- The prosecution of A under Section 497 IPC is no longer maintainable as the Section has been struck down by the Supreme Court.
- The exemption of the woman (B) from prosecution under this law was unconstitutional, and the entire Section was declared void.
- Adultery is not a criminal offence anymore; it remains a civil issue relevant only in matrimonial disputes.
