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.
News Network
June 1,2020

New Delhi, Jun 1: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday sought a discussion on advances in telemedicine, the use of "Make in India" products in the healthcare, and the use of IT tools in the medical sector for a healthier society.

Addressing an event at the Rajiv Gandhi Health University in Bengaluru via video conference, he sought a discussion on whether new models can be conceived that make telemedicine popular on a larger scale.

Referring to the "Make in India" program, he said the initial gains made in this field make him optimistic. "Our domestic manufacturers have started production of personal protective equipment and have supplied about one crore PPEs to those in the frontline of fighting COVID-19.

Modi said IT-related tools for healthier societies can be of great help.

"I am sure you have heard of Arogya Setu. Twelve crore health-conscious people have downloaded it. This has been very helpful in the fight against coronavirus," he 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.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 18,2020

Vijayapura, June 18: Shoukat Ali Sumbad, a local farmer, has donated land for the construction of Chennamma memorial, modelled on the Kittur fort, at Sindagi town in Vijayapura to celebrate the town's connect with the valorous Lingayat queen who fought the British in 1824.

Basava Jaya Mrutyunjaya Swamiji of Lingayat Panchamasali Peetha Kudala Sangam said Shoukat Ali came forward to donate his land adjacent to the state highway when local authorities failed to provide land for the memorial. 

"The committee led by Basava Jaya Mrutyunjaya Swamiji sought a 15x10 plot but when I went through their plan of constructing a model of Kittur fort, I decided to donate 425 sq ft," said the 61-year-old farmer. 

"Rani Chennamma is the pride of every Indian, irrespective of caste and creed, and my contribution is nothing compared to her sacrifice for the nation," he added.

Shoukat Ali, who lives in the neighbouring town of Almel, said he is a man of modest means but proud to make the contribution. "I own nine acres of land in Almel. I have six sons and two daughters. Two of my sons run small businesses in Mumbai. Ten of us live in a small house in Almel," he said.

“I also work as a broker to sell or buy sites. I had bought 15 guntas of land in Sindagi for my children some 15 years ago. When our MLA MC Managuli and Swamiji sought land for the memorial, my entire family agreed wholeheartedly” Shoukat Ali said.

“As Chennamma’s history is linked to Sindagi, there has been a demand for a memorial here since 2008, but the town municipal council failed to provide land due to political and technical reasons,” said Swamiji. 

“There were plans to observe a Sindagi bandh in the first week of June to protest the indifference of authorities. But then Sumbad gave us his land. We have formed a committee to construct a model of Kittur fort and a bronze statue of Chennamma at a cost of Rs 28 lakh,” he added.

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 21,2020

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.

Comments

A.Rahman
 - 
Friday, 22 May 2020

First of all  A Salute To Lawyer One Who Handled This Case Against Carriers Mismanagement Wrong Action.

 

Sure this is the second victory for the lawyer against arriers mismanagement.

 

Over all it is the sign  of a profesional ; qualified  eligble  lawyers efforts and right decision from a capable knowlegable judge. Suit case operating lawyers cannot handle such specilized cases.

They lawyer may handled rest of the vicitms cases or he not. But for his siincere efforts for the past ten years delcares whatn he  is. Am personally met him and  witnessed his court appearance  hope and wish him all the best and success .

 

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.