Facts in the Case
- ‘A’ was prosecuted under Section 497 of IPC, 1860 for having a relationship with ‘B’, a married woman.
- Section 497 (before repeal) made it a punishable offence for a man to have sexual relations with a married woman without the consent of her husband.
- The woman (‘B’) was not prosecuted, as the law only punished the male offender, not the woman.
- ‘A’ has challenged the prosecution as being discriminatory, stating that both participants should be equally liable.
Issues in the Case
- Does Section 497 IPC, by punishing only the man and not the woman involved, violate the right to equality under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution?
- Is A’s prosecution constitutionally valid, or is it discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights?
- Can a provision that exempts one equally guilty party be sustained in modern legal and constitutional interpretation?
Principles Applied
1. Constitutional Challenge to Section 497 IPC
- Section 497 was long criticized for being gender-biased, treating the woman as a mere victim or property of the husband, and not recognizing her individual agency or liability.
- It was also viewed as discriminatory against men, punishing only them for a consensual act between adults.
Case Law: Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 189
The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional, holding that:
- It violates Article 14 (equality before law),
- Article 15(1) (no discrimination based on sex), and
- Article 21 (right to dignity and privacy).
The Court observed that treating the woman as a passive victim and punishing only the man offends the principles of equality and dignity.
2. Principle of Substantive Equality
- Laws must not only treat individuals equally on paper but must also ensure equal accountability and protection in substance.
- The court emphasized that criminal law should not be based on outdated patriarchal notions that deny women agency.
Judgment / Conclusion
- ‘A’ is correct in arguing that the provision was discriminatory, as it punished only the male partner and exempted the woman, despite equal participation.
- However, the issue is now settled by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Joseph Shine, which struck down Section 497 IPC entirely as unconstitutional.
- Therefore, no person can now be prosecuted under Section 497 IPC, and ‘A’ cannot be held criminally liable under this provision.
