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
July 19,2020

Bengaluru, Jul 19: A man protested in front of Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa's residence on Saturday alleging lack of medical care claimed the life of his one-month-old infant girl, police said on Saturday.

Venkatesh sat with the baby's photograph in front of the Chief Minister's house, saying the girl developed health issues on July 11 and he rushed her to a hospital, but it turned him away, the police said.

He said he had approached about a dozen hospitals and all of them refused to provide the baby any medical care. Eventually, the baby died.

This forced Venkatesh to hold a protest to draw the Chief Minister's attention to the issue, the police said.

The demonstration drew public attention and a few people joined him in the protest, they 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
February 5,2020

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.

Comments

Suresh SS
 - 
Wednesday, 5 Feb 2020

We believed that only Indian Govt. ministers, MP and MLAs has this disease, now it is spreading everywhere even Indian High courts. it is certainly very harmful virus  

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 30,2020

Bengaluru, May 30: Bengaluru City civic body Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on the food delivery startup Swiggy for irresponsible disposal of waste, an official said on Friday.

"Thinking of food is great - Swiggy. Hope you also think of segregating waste and disposing of it responsibly," tweeted BBMP Solid Waste Management Special Commissioner D. Randeep.

Randeep said a penalty of Rs 50,000 was imposed on Swiggy Kitchen at Katriguppe in the city for the violation.

"The incident with respect to waste segregation has been brought to our notice and happened at one of our kitchens in Bengaluru," confirmed a Swiggy spokesperson to IANS without revealing the exact details.

He said the startup is aware of its civic responsibility and has stringent processes to ensure high standards of compliance.

"While we investigate and rectify the root cause of the matter, we are reinforcing necessary awareness on the best practices to be followed amongst our teams and partner network to ensure complete compliance with waste management," the spokesperson added.

Swiggy has been penalised earlier as well for its irresponsible disposal of waste.

Recently, the BBMP’s solid waste management department has also fined an apartment complex Rs 15,000 for not segregating waste into dry, wet and reject categories.

Waste disposal norms for apartments

"Segregation of waste is mandatory in apartments. Onus of enforcing segregation rules lies on the (apartment) association and waste should be segregated as dry, wet and reject," said Randeep.

InClover Grand Apartments at Baiyappanhalli was penalised for the offence of improper waste disposal. Similarly, BBMP marshals also caught and fined some people openly discarding waste in public spaces.

"Dear citizens, please change your old habits. Our marshals are watching and will fine those who throw garbage in public spaces," BBMP Special Commissioner Randeep said.

He shared the photographs of two scooter-borne individuals being caught in the act and penalised at Kuvempunagar in Bengaluru.

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.