‘Jail term for adultery does not make sense’
Krishnadas Rajagopal NEW DELHI, AUGUST 09, 2018 00:00 IST
UPDATED: AUGUST 09, 2018 05:10 IST
SHARE ARTICLE 8 PRINT A A A
At the most, it is a civil wrong: CJI
Sending a person to prison for five years for adultery does not appeal to common sense, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra orally observed on Wednesday.
Adultery does not even qualify as a criminal offence and is, at the most, a civil wrong, he said, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench. He said adultery has a civil remedy: divorce.
First, an adulterous relationship is carried on with the consent of the woman. “If a third party attacks or molests the wife of another, it amounts to rape. Rape is an offence. But if a relationship is carried with the consent of the woman, how does it amount to an offence? If there is consent [between two adults], why punish the wife’s lover?” Chief Justice Misra asked.
The Bench was countering submissions by the Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor-General Pinky Anand, that adultery should remain in the Indian Penal Code as it ensures the sanctity of the marriage, and is for public good. “Protecting marriage is the responsibility of the couple involved. If one of them fails, there is a civil remedy available to the other. Where is the question of public good in a broken marriage,” Chief Justice Misra asked Ms. Anand.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that there might be cases in which adultery was a consequence of a broken marriage.
Treat adultery as civil wrong: NCW
DECEMBER 28, 2006 00:00 IST
UPDATED: MARCH 22, 2012 09:43 IST
SHARE ARTICLE PRINT A A A
Special Correspondent
It should be seen as a breach of trust, says Girija Vyas
NEW DELHI: The National Commission for Women (NCW) has sought consensus on treating adultery as a civil wrong and not as a criminal offence.
Talking to reporters here on Wednesday, NCW chairperson Girija Vyas said that a full-fledged debate and a national consensus were necessary, as there were many instances where women viewed adultery as an aberration. The issue should be seen as a breach of trust.
Recommending amendments to Section 198 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) that disqualified a woman from prosecuting her husband for adultery, Ms. Vyas said: "The Commission believes that a woman should also have a right to prosecute her husband for his promiscuity."
The NCW had not made any suggestions to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development on proposed amendments to Section 497, considering the relatively socially un-empowered position of women.
The existing IPC provision was based on the mindset that the wife was a personal possession of the husband, who was solely aggrieved by adultery.
Section 497 provided that the wife could not be punished even as an abettor based on the reasoning that the woman, involved in an illicit relationship, was a victim and not the author of the crime.
"This view has been upheld by the Supreme Court and several other judgments," she said.
Men got divorce by charging women of adultery, which often left them high and dry with no scope for reconciliation. This needed to be changed.
SC disagrees with government that adultery law is needed to save marriages
PTI|Updated: Aug 08, 2018, 08.56 PM IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today disagreed with the Centre's submission that the penal provision on adultery was needed to save the sanctity of marriage, saying it does not appeal to common sense that a woman cannot prosecute her husband for adulterous relationship.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which reserved its verdict on a plea challenging Section 497 of the IPC, was told by the Centre that adultery was a "public wrong" which damaged the sanctity of marriage and caused mental and physical injury to the spouse, the children and the family.
However, the bench, also comprising Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, said "the husbands have been given a dominant position (in the law)".
It also posed whether it is correct that two people get involved, fall in love and have a consensual relationship, but "one is liable for prosecution and the other is not liable for prosecution."
Referring to the inconsistencies in the penal law, it asked "what is the sanctity of marriage here. If the consent of husband is taken, then there is no adultery? ...
"What is this consent? There will be no offence if the husband consents to this relationship? What is this? What is the collective public good in Section 497 to hold that this (adultery) is an offence".
The bench also questioned the law on various counts including that an extra-marital affair becomes non-punishable if the woman's husband stands by her adulterous relationship with another married person.
"We are not questioning the legislature's competence to make laws, but where is the 'collective good' in Section 497 of IPC," the bench asked.
This section of the 158-year-old IPC says: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reasons to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery."
Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for the Centre, commenced her arguments by saying that adultery has been made an offence keeping in mind the sanctity of marriage as an institution.
"Adultery is an action willingly and knowingly done with the knowledge that it would hurt the spouse, the children and the family. Such intentional action which impinges on the sanctity of marriage and sexual fidelity encompassed in marriage, which forms the backbone of the Indian society, has been classified and defined by the Indian State as a criminal offence in exercise of its constitutional powers," she said.
She said that judgement of foreign jurisdictions which had set aside adultery as a criminal offence, should not be taken into account and the instant matter has to be decided on the basis of the social conditions prevalent in India. Moreover, adulterous relationships are not protected under the right to privacy.
The bench said the law in question was only "targetting" married women and not the men who can have relationships with unmarried women, widow and married women with the consent of their husbands.
"You expect married women to be loyal and you do not expect married men to be loyal," the bench said.
The law officer submitted that women are not being prosecuted for the offence of adultery and only outsider men, who disturb the sanctity of marriage, were being tried for the offence.
The inclusion of women cannot be permitted in the law in its present form, the bench pointed out. It said that only married women were being burdened with the task of maintaining the sanctity of marriage and "one expects fidelity from women only."
Consensual relationship outside marriage was an indication that the marriage has already broken down and such sexual intercourse should not have penal consequences, it said.
Stressing the need to have "uncommon common sense" to understand the constitutional concepts, the court asked "suppose somebody gets into an adulterous relationship, does it entitle the person to be prosecuted".
"Adultery can still be a civil wrong and nobody has the right to enter into an adulterous relationship. But it does not mean that they would be prosecuted," the bench said, adding "when it is consensual, how can there be prosecution".
The bench said the idea behind having the provision in the statute was that women were treated as "chattel of men" and the husbands should have the right to sue the paramours of their wives.
The bench also clarified that the it would not "read down the law" but would either allow the proviso to remain or strike it down.
The law officer said that 20 states of the USA have retained adultery as an offence.
The bench disagreed with the submission saying that marriage as an institution is viewed differently in India.
The court said the concept of marriage has been evolving and now the consent of the spouse at the time of tying the knot does not remain in force for all time to come and "there has to be consent of partners at every stage of life".
The bench also said "the state cannot impose a code of conduct on citizens saying they will have to conduct themselves in a particular manner".
It said sometimes marriages break down in reality, but it subsists on paper. So, the issue is can there be prosecution for an offence of adultery in such cases. "Sustenance of a relationship is based on the parties, their willingness to adjust and the State should not come into it," it added.
SC says adultery law looks pro-women but is anti-women, hints it may go
By Samanwaya Rautray, ET Bureau|Updated: Aug 03, 2018, 07.41 AM IST
The Supreme Court has observed that the anti-adultery provision in law was 'anti-women' in a deep patriarchal sense as it was not an offence if the husband were to consent or connive in it.
“The law seems to be prowomen but is anti-women in a grave ostensible way. As if with the consent of the husband, wife can be subjected to someone else’s desire,” a five-judge bench led by CJI Dipak Misra observed. In its prima facie remarks, the bench said that Section 497 and Section 198(2) of the CrPC should not stay in the statute book as a crime.
The court was reacting to arguments that the adultery had ceased to be an offence in most countries.
The petitioners urged the court to not strike down the law only on the ground that it was discriminatory against men. In that case, he argued, the government may just change the law to make the offence gender neutral. Instead, he urged the court to declare the law as anti-woman as it violated their right to life and dignity.
The law, he said, allowed husbands to control what the woman in a marriage can do with herself. That is against her right to autonomy over herself, he said. Justice Chandrachud intervened to say that a woman should have the right to say no in even in a marriage. Autonomy would then follow as a natural corollary, he said.
The CJI, however, baulked at debating these issues. He said that adultery was a ground for divorce for both parties in a marriage. But the court, he said, cannot condone adultery within the institution of marriage.
The CJI, however, baulked at debating these issues. He said that adultery was a ground for divorce for both parties in a marriage. But the court, he said, cannot condone adultery within the institution of marriage.
The CJI, however, baulked at debating these issues. He said that adultery was a ground for divorce for both parties in a marriage. But the court, he said, cannot condone adultery within the institution of marriage.
The CJI, however, baulked at debating these issues. He said that adultery was a ground for divorce for both parties in a marriage. But the court, he said, cannot condone adultery within the institution of marriage.
Why India is still not adult about adultery
26th Feb 2017
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/why-india-is-still-not-adult-about-adultery/articleshow/57349750.cms
As far back as 2006, National Commission for Women recommended that adultery be decriminalised
All European countries have decriminalised adultery, and so have many parts of Latin America
In 2015, South Korea followed suit. Now, only three Asian countries still criminalise adultery – Taiwan, the Philippines and India
Three is a crowd, especially in a marriage. But should someone face criminal action for stepping outside the bounds of of matrimony? That's what Indian law still holds. It punishes the male partner for trespassing on another man's property, namely, his wife.
The adultery law was in the spotlight last week when C Channaiah, a resident of Hyderabad's Shivaji Nagar, pressed adultery charges on a police constable after discovering him in bed with his wife. Channaiah first locked up his wife and the constable, Madhusudan Reddy, in the bedroom, and then raised an alarm. He alleged that the affair had been going on for several months. Reddy has been arrested under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, and could face up to five years in prison if the charges are upheld by the court. His willing lover, though, need not fear the law, since it does not apply to an adulterous woman.
Reddy has been unlucky enough to be caught in the maws of one of India's more archaic laws. Section 497 treats extra-marital affairs as crimes. More precisely, it sees it as a theft of a man's wife. The woman's own agency and rights are ignored.
In fact, it only applies to situations where the wife commits adultery. The wronged husband can invoke Section 497 against his wife's sexual partner. But if the situation was reversed, and the husband had committed an infidelity with an unmarried woman, his wife has no power to move the law. He faces criminal liability if his lover is married, and her husband files a complaint.
One of India's most famous cases of marital infidelity and courtroom drama is that of navy commander KM Nanavati, who shot dead his wife Sylvia's lover , the businessman Prem Ahuja. While Nanavati faced prosecution for murder, Sylvia did not. That 1950s crime of passion was the reason India abolished the jury system. That case has inspired several Bollywood movies, the most recent being Rustom.
But over the years, it has been widely recognised that the the law is patriarchal and discriminatory, and out of touch with contemporary society. And yet, it lingers on, in the IPC. In 1951, Yusuf Aziz challenged its constitutionality, but Bombay High Court upheld the section, saying that the Constitution has such special legislations for women. In 1971, the Fifth Law Commission recommended changes in the provision, including making the law gender-neutral and reducing the prison term from five to two years. Those recommendations were also ignored.
In 2006, the National Commission for Women rightly recommend that adultery be decriminalised.
Perhaps the reason it has not been erased from the statute books is because there is no political will or public pressure to do so, with questions of morality enmeshed in the matter. "In my view, adultery should be treated as a civil misdemeanour, not a criminal one. We can't treat adultery as a crime," says Prof Mary E John from the Centre for Women's Development Studies.
Why should a law on marital infidelity let women off the hook, and focus solely on the male partner? In 2003, the Malimath Committee, constituted by the Union home ministry, declared that "there is no good reason for not meting out similar treatment to a wife who has sexual intercourse with a married man." So, instead of confining itself to anyone who has sex with "the wife of another man", the Malimath Committee said that Section 497 should penalise anyone who has sex with "the spouse of any other person".
But the real question is, why should men or women be treated as criminals in the eyes of the state, for their private decisions? This law offends sensibilities, says senior Supreme Court lawyer Geeta Luthra. The rationale behind the law is unpalatable, and it should be removed. One the one hand, we have this law, and on the other we have the SC ruling that recognises the legitimacy of live-in relationships," she says.
Divorce lawyer Shilpi Jain agrees. "The adultery legislation has no relevance in today's social context. It treats a woman like a property of a man — like a cow or a car — which is unfair. The Supreme Court has recognised live-in relationships and there is a change in our social values today," she says.
In an op-ed in The Los Angeles Times, Deborah L Rhode, a professor of law at Stanford University and the author of Adultery: Infidelity and the Law, recounts a joke on how on how Moses came down from his mountain meeting with God and announced, "I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I bargained him down to only 10 commandments. The bad news is that adultery stays in.
It's time for this anachronistic and gender-biased law to go out.
People say women r not object , her body her right & Right to equality
At the same place various Indian law like IPC 497 , sex on d pretext of marriage / Job is treating women as an object & fool
Women reservation in job & giving women special benefit are clearly violatng Right to equality law
Krishnadas Rajagopal NEW DELHI, AUGUST 09, 2018 00:00 IST
UPDATED: AUGUST 09, 2018 05:10 IST
SHARE ARTICLE 8 PRINT A A A
At the most, it is a civil wrong: CJI
Sending a person to prison for five years for adultery does not appeal to common sense, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra orally observed on Wednesday.
Adultery does not even qualify as a criminal offence and is, at the most, a civil wrong, he said, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench. He said adultery has a civil remedy: divorce.
First, an adulterous relationship is carried on with the consent of the woman. “If a third party attacks or molests the wife of another, it amounts to rape. Rape is an offence. But if a relationship is carried with the consent of the woman, how does it amount to an offence? If there is consent [between two adults], why punish the wife’s lover?” Chief Justice Misra asked.
The Bench was countering submissions by the Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor-General Pinky Anand, that adultery should remain in the Indian Penal Code as it ensures the sanctity of the marriage, and is for public good. “Protecting marriage is the responsibility of the couple involved. If one of them fails, there is a civil remedy available to the other. Where is the question of public good in a broken marriage,” Chief Justice Misra asked Ms. Anand.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that there might be cases in which adultery was a consequence of a broken marriage.
Treat adultery as civil wrong: NCW
DECEMBER 28, 2006 00:00 IST
UPDATED: MARCH 22, 2012 09:43 IST
SHARE ARTICLE PRINT A A A
Special Correspondent
It should be seen as a breach of trust, says Girija Vyas
NEW DELHI: The National Commission for Women (NCW) has sought consensus on treating adultery as a civil wrong and not as a criminal offence.
Talking to reporters here on Wednesday, NCW chairperson Girija Vyas said that a full-fledged debate and a national consensus were necessary, as there were many instances where women viewed adultery as an aberration. The issue should be seen as a breach of trust.
Recommending amendments to Section 198 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) that disqualified a woman from prosecuting her husband for adultery, Ms. Vyas said: "The Commission believes that a woman should also have a right to prosecute her husband for his promiscuity."
The NCW had not made any suggestions to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development on proposed amendments to Section 497, considering the relatively socially un-empowered position of women.
The existing IPC provision was based on the mindset that the wife was a personal possession of the husband, who was solely aggrieved by adultery.
Section 497 provided that the wife could not be punished even as an abettor based on the reasoning that the woman, involved in an illicit relationship, was a victim and not the author of the crime.
"This view has been upheld by the Supreme Court and several other judgments," she said.
Men got divorce by charging women of adultery, which often left them high and dry with no scope for reconciliation. This needed to be changed.
SC disagrees with government that adultery law is needed to save marriages
PTI|Updated: Aug 08, 2018, 08.56 PM IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today disagreed with the Centre's submission that the penal provision on adultery was needed to save the sanctity of marriage, saying it does not appeal to common sense that a woman cannot prosecute her husband for adulterous relationship.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which reserved its verdict on a plea challenging Section 497 of the IPC, was told by the Centre that adultery was a "public wrong" which damaged the sanctity of marriage and caused mental and physical injury to the spouse, the children and the family.
However, the bench, also comprising Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, said "the husbands have been given a dominant position (in the law)".
It also posed whether it is correct that two people get involved, fall in love and have a consensual relationship, but "one is liable for prosecution and the other is not liable for prosecution."
Referring to the inconsistencies in the penal law, it asked "what is the sanctity of marriage here. If the consent of husband is taken, then there is no adultery? ...
"What is this consent? There will be no offence if the husband consents to this relationship? What is this? What is the collective public good in Section 497 to hold that this (adultery) is an offence".
The bench also questioned the law on various counts including that an extra-marital affair becomes non-punishable if the woman's husband stands by her adulterous relationship with another married person.
"We are not questioning the legislature's competence to make laws, but where is the 'collective good' in Section 497 of IPC," the bench asked.
This section of the 158-year-old IPC says: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reasons to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery."
Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for the Centre, commenced her arguments by saying that adultery has been made an offence keeping in mind the sanctity of marriage as an institution.
"Adultery is an action willingly and knowingly done with the knowledge that it would hurt the spouse, the children and the family. Such intentional action which impinges on the sanctity of marriage and sexual fidelity encompassed in marriage, which forms the backbone of the Indian society, has been classified and defined by the Indian State as a criminal offence in exercise of its constitutional powers," she said.
She said that judgement of foreign jurisdictions which had set aside adultery as a criminal offence, should not be taken into account and the instant matter has to be decided on the basis of the social conditions prevalent in India. Moreover, adulterous relationships are not protected under the right to privacy.
The bench said the law in question was only "targetting" married women and not the men who can have relationships with unmarried women, widow and married women with the consent of their husbands.
"You expect married women to be loyal and you do not expect married men to be loyal," the bench said.
The law officer submitted that women are not being prosecuted for the offence of adultery and only outsider men, who disturb the sanctity of marriage, were being tried for the offence.
The inclusion of women cannot be permitted in the law in its present form, the bench pointed out. It said that only married women were being burdened with the task of maintaining the sanctity of marriage and "one expects fidelity from women only."
Consensual relationship outside marriage was an indication that the marriage has already broken down and such sexual intercourse should not have penal consequences, it said.
Stressing the need to have "uncommon common sense" to understand the constitutional concepts, the court asked "suppose somebody gets into an adulterous relationship, does it entitle the person to be prosecuted".
"Adultery can still be a civil wrong and nobody has the right to enter into an adulterous relationship. But it does not mean that they would be prosecuted," the bench said, adding "when it is consensual, how can there be prosecution".
The bench said the idea behind having the provision in the statute was that women were treated as "chattel of men" and the husbands should have the right to sue the paramours of their wives.
The bench also clarified that the it would not "read down the law" but would either allow the proviso to remain or strike it down.
The law officer said that 20 states of the USA have retained adultery as an offence.
The bench disagreed with the submission saying that marriage as an institution is viewed differently in India.
The court said the concept of marriage has been evolving and now the consent of the spouse at the time of tying the knot does not remain in force for all time to come and "there has to be consent of partners at every stage of life".
The bench also said "the state cannot impose a code of conduct on citizens saying they will have to conduct themselves in a particular manner".
It said sometimes marriages break down in reality, but it subsists on paper. So, the issue is can there be prosecution for an offence of adultery in such cases. "Sustenance of a relationship is based on the parties, their willingness to adjust and the State should not come into it," it added.
SC says adultery law looks pro-women but is anti-women, hints it may go
By Samanwaya Rautray, ET Bureau|Updated: Aug 03, 2018, 07.41 AM IST
The Supreme Court has observed that the anti-adultery provision in law was 'anti-women' in a deep patriarchal sense as it was not an offence if the husband were to consent or connive in it.
“The law seems to be prowomen but is anti-women in a grave ostensible way. As if with the consent of the husband, wife can be subjected to someone else’s desire,” a five-judge bench led by CJI Dipak Misra observed. In its prima facie remarks, the bench said that Section 497 and Section 198(2) of the CrPC should not stay in the statute book as a crime.
The court was reacting to arguments that the adultery had ceased to be an offence in most countries.
The petitioners urged the court to not strike down the law only on the ground that it was discriminatory against men. In that case, he argued, the government may just change the law to make the offence gender neutral. Instead, he urged the court to declare the law as anti-woman as it violated their right to life and dignity.
The law, he said, allowed husbands to control what the woman in a marriage can do with herself. That is against her right to autonomy over herself, he said. Justice Chandrachud intervened to say that a woman should have the right to say no in even in a marriage. Autonomy would then follow as a natural corollary, he said.
The CJI, however, baulked at debating these issues. He said that adultery was a ground for divorce for both parties in a marriage. But the court, he said, cannot condone adultery within the institution of marriage.
The CJI, however, baulked at debating these issues. He said that adultery was a ground for divorce for both parties in a marriage. But the court, he said, cannot condone adultery within the institution of marriage.
The CJI, however, baulked at debating these issues. He said that adultery was a ground for divorce for both parties in a marriage. But the court, he said, cannot condone adultery within the institution of marriage.
The CJI, however, baulked at debating these issues. He said that adultery was a ground for divorce for both parties in a marriage. But the court, he said, cannot condone adultery within the institution of marriage.
Why India is still not adult about adultery
26th Feb 2017
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/why-india-is-still-not-adult-about-adultery/articleshow/57349750.cms
As far back as 2006, National Commission for Women recommended that adultery be decriminalised
All European countries have decriminalised adultery, and so have many parts of Latin America
In 2015, South Korea followed suit. Now, only three Asian countries still criminalise adultery – Taiwan, the Philippines and India
Three is a crowd, especially in a marriage. But should someone face criminal action for stepping outside the bounds of of matrimony? That's what Indian law still holds. It punishes the male partner for trespassing on another man's property, namely, his wife.
The adultery law was in the spotlight last week when C Channaiah, a resident of Hyderabad's Shivaji Nagar, pressed adultery charges on a police constable after discovering him in bed with his wife. Channaiah first locked up his wife and the constable, Madhusudan Reddy, in the bedroom, and then raised an alarm. He alleged that the affair had been going on for several months. Reddy has been arrested under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, and could face up to five years in prison if the charges are upheld by the court. His willing lover, though, need not fear the law, since it does not apply to an adulterous woman.
Reddy has been unlucky enough to be caught in the maws of one of India's more archaic laws. Section 497 treats extra-marital affairs as crimes. More precisely, it sees it as a theft of a man's wife. The woman's own agency and rights are ignored.
In fact, it only applies to situations where the wife commits adultery. The wronged husband can invoke Section 497 against his wife's sexual partner. But if the situation was reversed, and the husband had committed an infidelity with an unmarried woman, his wife has no power to move the law. He faces criminal liability if his lover is married, and her husband files a complaint.
One of India's most famous cases of marital infidelity and courtroom drama is that of navy commander KM Nanavati, who shot dead his wife Sylvia's lover , the businessman Prem Ahuja. While Nanavati faced prosecution for murder, Sylvia did not. That 1950s crime of passion was the reason India abolished the jury system. That case has inspired several Bollywood movies, the most recent being Rustom.
But over the years, it has been widely recognised that the the law is patriarchal and discriminatory, and out of touch with contemporary society. And yet, it lingers on, in the IPC. In 1951, Yusuf Aziz challenged its constitutionality, but Bombay High Court upheld the section, saying that the Constitution has such special legislations for women. In 1971, the Fifth Law Commission recommended changes in the provision, including making the law gender-neutral and reducing the prison term from five to two years. Those recommendations were also ignored.
In 2006, the National Commission for Women rightly recommend that adultery be decriminalised.
Perhaps the reason it has not been erased from the statute books is because there is no political will or public pressure to do so, with questions of morality enmeshed in the matter. "In my view, adultery should be treated as a civil misdemeanour, not a criminal one. We can't treat adultery as a crime," says Prof Mary E John from the Centre for Women's Development Studies.
Why should a law on marital infidelity let women off the hook, and focus solely on the male partner? In 2003, the Malimath Committee, constituted by the Union home ministry, declared that "there is no good reason for not meting out similar treatment to a wife who has sexual intercourse with a married man." So, instead of confining itself to anyone who has sex with "the wife of another man", the Malimath Committee said that Section 497 should penalise anyone who has sex with "the spouse of any other person".
But the real question is, why should men or women be treated as criminals in the eyes of the state, for their private decisions? This law offends sensibilities, says senior Supreme Court lawyer Geeta Luthra. The rationale behind the law is unpalatable, and it should be removed. One the one hand, we have this law, and on the other we have the SC ruling that recognises the legitimacy of live-in relationships," she says.
Divorce lawyer Shilpi Jain agrees. "The adultery legislation has no relevance in today's social context. It treats a woman like a property of a man — like a cow or a car — which is unfair. The Supreme Court has recognised live-in relationships and there is a change in our social values today," she says.
In an op-ed in The Los Angeles Times, Deborah L Rhode, a professor of law at Stanford University and the author of Adultery: Infidelity and the Law, recounts a joke on how on how Moses came down from his mountain meeting with God and announced, "I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I bargained him down to only 10 commandments. The bad news is that adultery stays in.
It's time for this anachronistic and gender-biased law to go out.
People say women r not object , her body her right & Right to equality
At the same place various Indian law like IPC 497 , sex on d pretext of marriage / Job is treating women as an object & fool
Women reservation in job & giving women special benefit are clearly violatng Right to equality law
No comments:
Post a Comment