Adultery no more a crime; husband is not the master of his wife: Supreme Court

News Network
September 27, 2018

New Delhi, Sept 27: In a historic judgement, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code that made adultery a criminal offence.

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra was unanimous in its judgement that held Section 497 as unconstitutional. While holding that adultery is manifestly arbitrary, the court said the act can be a ground for divorce and a person will have civil remedies for it.

The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar said, "We declare Section 497 IPC and Section 198 of CrPC dealing with the prosecution of offences against marriage as unconstitutional".

Reading out his part of the judgement, CJI Misra, who retires early next month, said mere adultery cannot be a crime, unless it attracts the scope of Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.

Adultery law verdict - Highlights

“Equality is the governing principle of a system. Husband is not the master of the wife,” the CJI said, adding “the magnificent beauty of the democracy is I, you and we”.

The Chief Justice noted that an unhappy marriage might not be a result of adultery but vice versa. He pointed out that adultery is not a criminal offence in countries like China, Japan and Australia.

Justice Indu Malhotra described Section 497 as “a clear violation of fundamental rights granted in the Constitution”. There is no justification for the continuation of Section 497 of IPC, she concurred.

Justice Chandrachud, on his part, said Section 497 is denial of substance of equality as it imposes “a condition on the sexuality of women by making adultery as an offence.” He held the law as a “relic of the past”.

Justice RF Nariman, meanwhile, termed Section 497 dealing with adultery as an archaic law. He concurred with the CJI and Justice Khanwilkar, describing the penal provision under the law as violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women.

Section 497 of the IPC read: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason 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, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."

Comments

sam
 - 
Thursday, 27 Sep 2018

Ohhh....whats going on in india under name of democracy....

Ramprasad
 - 
Thursday, 27 Sep 2018

Strange. SC promoting adultery

Unknown
 - 
Thursday, 27 Sep 2018

Soon rape will be legalised.. 

Kumar
 - 
Thursday, 27 Sep 2018

No need of marriages and SC should legalise pornography. Should start pornography industry (just like other film industry) in India like US. 

Danish
 - 
Thursday, 27 Sep 2018

Rubbish. What is the point in marriage

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
May 22,2020

It has been 33 years since the night of 22 May, 1987 when nearly 50 Muslim men from Hashimpura, a settlement in Meerut were rounded up and packed into the rear of a truck of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), an armed police of Uttar Pradesh. It was the blessed month of Ramadan and all the Muslims were fasting.

That night 42 of those on board the truck were killed in two massacres in neighbouring Ghaziabad district. One along the Upper Ganga canal near Muradnagar, the other along the Hindon canal in Makanpur, on the border with Delhi.

The cops had returned home after dumping the dead bodies into the canal. A few days later, the dead bodies were found floating in the canal and a case of murder was registered. 

Vir Bahadur Singh was the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister of India when this incident took place. 

Not much has changed for the survivors and the relatives of the victims even today. The wounds are still fresh. Hashimpura remains devoid of basic municipal amenities, the erring silence on the narrow lanes of the locality amid the activities of a daily life speaks of the horror of the fateful day in 1987.

The massacre was the result of one among the many outcomes of the decision taken by the Rajiv Gandhi government to open the locks of Babri Masjid. After a month of rioting, the situation was tense in various parts of Meerut, and a lot spilled over in the nearby areas.

Timeline

May 22, 1987

Nearly 50 Muslims picked up by the PAC personnel from Hashimpura village in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
Victims later shot and bodies thrown into a canal. 42 persons declared dead.

1988

UP government orders CB-CID probe in the case.

February 1994

CB-CID submits inquiry report indicting over 60 PAC and police personnel of all ranks.

May 20, 1996

Charge sheet filed against 19 accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad by CB-CID of Uttar Pradesh police. 161 people listed as witnesses.

September 2002

Case transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court on a petition by the families of victims and survivors.

July 2006

Delhi court frames charges of murder, attempt to murder, tampering with evidence and conspiracy under the IPC against 17 accused.

March 8, 2013

Trial court dismisses Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking probe into the alleged role of P Chidambaram, then Minister of State for Home, in the matter.

January 22, 2015

Trial court reserves judgement.

March 21, 2015

Court acquits 16 surviving accused giving them benefit of doubt regarding their identity.

May 18, 2015

Trial court decision challenged in the Delhi HC by the victims' families and eyewitnesses who survived the incident.

May 29, 2015

HC issues notice to the 16 PAC personnel on Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against the trial court verdict.

December 2015

National Human Rights Commission is impleaded in the matter. NHRC also seeks further probe into the massacre.

February 17, 2016

HC tags Swamy's appeal with the other petitions in the matter.

September 6, 2018

Delhi HC reserves verdict in the case.

October 31, 2018

Delhi HC convicts 16 former PAC personnel for life after finding them guilty of the murder of 42 people.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
July 20,2020

Mysuru, Jul 20: Police and the Bengaluru City Quarantine Squad apprehended quarantine breacher “Drone Boy” Prathap N M in Mysuru on Monday afternoon.

Police sources said that the 23-year-old youth agreed to surrender following negotiations with officers. 

“He agreed to turn himself in after realizing that he had no other alternative,” said an officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

A team of officers from the Quarantine Squad under Dr Prayag H S and police from the Talaghattapura Police Station under Inspector Ramappa Guttedar said they apprehended Prathap who was staying at a hotel in the Mandi Mohalla area at around 3 pm.

Prathap’s father accompanied the team to convince his son to surrender. Police said Prathap will be returned to the city to be placed into 14 days of institutional quarantine. 

With two cell phones at his disposal Prathap, who is accused of twice breaching home quarantine regulations, fled the city on Saturday. 

Police, who were initially aware of only one cell phone, lost track of the youth as he drove out of the city, turning his phone off near Kengeri.

However, after quizzing the fugitive’s family, police learned that Prathap had a second phone and sim card. “His whereabouts were established on Sunday evening by tracking this second phone,” an official source said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 27,2020

In a development which highlights the diversity in the United Kingdom’s legal system, a 40-year-old Muslim woman has become the first hijab-wearing judge in the country.

Raffia Arshad, a barrister, was appointed a deputy district judge on the Midlands circuit last week after 17-year career in law.  

She said her promotion was great news for diversity in the world’s most respected legal system. She hopes to be an inspiration to young Muslims.

Ms Arshad, who grew up in Yorkshire, north England, has wanted to work in law since she was 11.

Ms Arshad said the judicial office was looking to promote diversity, but when they appointed her they did not know that she wore the hijab.

‘It’s definitely bigger than me,” she told Metro newspaper. "I know this is not about me.

"It’s important for all women, not just Muslim women, but it is particularly important for Muslim women."

Ms Arshad, a mother of three, has been practising private law dealing with children, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and other cases involving Islamic law for the past 17 years.

She was the first in her family to go to university and has also written a leading text on Islamic family law.

Although the promotion by the Lord Chief Justice was welcome news for her, Ms Arshad said the happiness from other people sharing the news was “far greater”.

“I’ve had so many emails from people, men and women," she said.

"It’s the ones from women that stand out, saying that they wear a hijab and thought they wouldn’t even be able to become a barrister, let alone a judge."

Ms Arshad is regularly the subject of discrimination in the courtroom because of her choice to wear the hijab.

She is sometimes mistaken for a court worker or a client.

Ms Arshad said that recently she was asked by an usher whether she was a client, an interpreter, and even if she were on work experience.

“I have nothing against the usher who said that but it reflects that as a society, even for somebody who works in the courts, there is still this prejudicial view that professionals at the top end don’t look like me,” she said.

A family member once advised her to not wear a hijab at an interview for a scholarship at the Inns of Court School of Law in 2001, warning that it would affect her chances of landing the role.

“I decided that I was going to wear my headscarf because for me it’s so important to accept the person for who they are," Ms Arshad said.

"And if I had to become a different person to pursue my profession, it’s not something I wanted.”

The joint heads of St Mary’s Family Law Chambers said they were “delighted” to hear the news of her appointment.

“Raffia has led the way for Muslim women to succeed in the law and at the bar, and has worked tirelessly to promote equality and diversity in the profession,” Vickie Hodges and Judy Claxton said.

“It is an appointment richly deserved and entirely on merit, and all at St Mary’s are proud of her and wish her every success.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.