Site icon Youth Ki Awaaz

Legal Sanctity for Adultery to Indian women must be a no!

Recently, a video of a police officer and a woman sharing intimate moments went viral. The police officer was seen donning the ‘khaki’. This was bound to add woes to his crime—’adultery’. On the contrary, the woman in the situation had nothing to fear. As far as crime is concerned, she was safe and absolutely protected under the wings of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.

The section reads as under:

Whosoever 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 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. This means that only man can be prosecuted against and punished for adultery. Ironically, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution says: “The State shall not deny to any person – equality before the laws within the territory of India.” Simultaneously, Article 15 states: “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.” Thus it is evident that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code contradicts Section 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

The year 2018 is worlds apart from the year 1860, when these laws were formulated. A lot has been done for the upliftment of ‘the fairer sex’ over these years. But is Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code really fair? A crime is a crime irrespective of who commits it. The same punishment must be given to all for indulging in a specific crime. That adultery is a crime for man but the right to freedom for woman is both unreasonable and illogical.

Till January, 2018, 101 amendments have been made to the Indian Constitution. It is high time that Section 497 of Indian Penal Code must either be amended or abolished. Promoting one child does not justify demoting the other.

Exit mobile version