Landmark Cases on Adultery in India

Adultery, a once criminal offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has been at the heart of legal debates in India for decades. For more than a century, this law treated the act of adultery as a crime only if committed by a man against a married woman, while the woman involved was treated as a victim and not an offender. 

This colonial-era provision was struck down in 2018, marking a significant shift in India’s legal landscape. Over the years, several landmark cases have played a crucial role in the evolution of the law on adultery, influencing the legal framework and societal perceptions of gender, equality, and marriage. In this article, we explore the key cases that shaped the legal discourse on adultery in India.

Historical Context of Adultery Law in India

Before understanding the landmark cases, it is essential to examine the framework that governed adultery in India. Section 497 of the IPC, introduced during British colonial rule in 1860, made adultery a criminal offence but had significant flaws. 

It allowed only the husband to file a complaint against his wife’s lover, while the wife had no legal recourse against her husband’s infidelity. The law presumed that women were the property of their husbands and viewed them as incapable of agency in matters of sexual consent.

Despite being criticised over the years, the law remained in place for more than 150 years. However, the advent of judicial activism and changing societal norms eventually led to a series of legal battles that would challenge its validity.

What are Landmark Cases on Adultery in India?

Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954)

The first significant challenge to Section 497 came in 1954, when Yusuf Abdul Aziz contested the law’s constitutionality. Section 497 of the IPC made adultery a criminal offence, but only if committed by a man against a married woman, excluding women from criminal liability. 

Yusuf Abdul Aziz argued that the provision violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the Constitution, as it discriminated against women by holding only men accountable for adultery. He further contended that the law treated women as victims and not as individuals capable of committing adultery.

The Supreme Court upheld the provision and dismissed the challenge. It reasoned that the law was not unconstitutional because it was based on Article 15(3), which allows special provisions for women. The Court concluded that the law was meant to protect women by recognising them as victims of the offence, rather than offenders. The Court’s rationale was rooted in the assumption that it was the husband’s right to protect the marriage, and thus, he alone could lodge a complaint.

Impact

The Yusuf Abdul Aziz case reinforced the view that the law was meant to preserve the sanctity of marriage. It also reflected a patriarchal mindset where women were considered passive participants, incapable of committing adultery. This judgement laid the foundation for the gender-biased framework that persisted for decades.

Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985)

In 1985, a similar issue came before the Supreme Court in Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India. In this case, the petitioner, a woman, challenged the constitutionality of Section 497, arguing that it discriminated against women by excluding them from both prosecution and being prosecuted for adultery. She argued that such a provision violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.

However, the Supreme Court once again upheld Section 497. The Court stated that Section 497 was intended to protect the sanctity of marriage and, therefore, it did not violate the Constitution. The judgement held that the “special protection” offered to women under the law was in their best interest, to prevent them from being harassed in court and to safeguard the institution of marriage. 

The Court also emphasised that both the husband and wife were barred from prosecuting each other, which, in the Court’s view, ensured that the law protected marriage and the relationship between the spouses.

Impact:

The Sowmithri Vishnu judgement reaffirmed the gendered nature of the law and reinforced the belief that the husband was the primary protector of the marriage. The ruling dismissed the idea that women should be given equal rights under Section 497, emphasising the law’s protective role rather than promoting gender equality. This decision continued to support a patriarchal understanding of marriage.

Revathi v. Union of India (1988)

In 1988, the case of V. Revathi v. Union of India came before the Supreme Court. This case challenged the inability of wives to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 497. The petitioner, Revathi, argued that Section 497 was unconstitutional because it allowed only a husband to lodge a complaint against his wife’s lover, while the wife had no legal recourse if her husband was unfaithful. This, according to the petitioner, was a violation of Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex).

The Supreme Court once again upheld the constitutionality of Section 497, citing the need to protect the “sanctity of marriage”. The Court maintained that neither the husband nor the wife could prosecute each other for adultery because doing so could lead to unnecessary criminalisation of personal relationships. 

The Court continued to adhere to the view that the law was intended to shield women from the criminal justice system, while ensuring that husbands could take action against their wives’ lovers.

Impact:

The Revathi case reinforced the protectionist rationale of Section 497. The Court’s reasoning continued to reflect an outdated understanding of women’s rights and marital relations. It held that adultery was an offence committed by a man against another man (the husband of the wife), rather than an act between two consenting adults. 

This judgement perpetuated the notion that women were to be treated as objects of protection, rather than as individuals with the right to defend their dignity and autonomy.

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

The case that ultimately changed the course of Indian adultery law came in 2018 – Joseph Shine v. Union of India. This case challenged the constitutional validity of Section 497, and it marked a historic moment for gender justice in India. Joseph Shine, a non-resident Keralite, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) contending that Section 497 violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. He argued that the law was discriminatory because it criminalised a man’s extramarital affair but did not hold women criminally liable for the same act.

Joseph Shine also argued that the provision treated women as property of their husbands and violated their right to equality and dignity. He highlighted that the law failed to respect women’s autonomy and personal freedom. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement, struck down Section 497 as unconstitutional, stating that it was a violation of personal liberty and equality.

The Court emphasised that the law treated women as “property” of their husbands and ignored their agency. It held that criminal law was not the right mechanism to address adultery, as it intruded upon personal and private matters that should be dealt with within the civil domain, such as divorce or separation. The judgement decriminalised adultery but allowed it to remain a ground for divorce under personal laws.

Impact:

The Joseph Shine case marked the decriminalisation of adultery in India, a move hailed as a step towards gender equality. The judgement recognised that a woman’s dignity and personal autonomy could not be compromised for the sake of preserving an outdated and discriminatory law. The Court rejected the paternalistic view that women need to be protected from criminal prosecution and instead embraced the idea that individuals, irrespective of gender, should be free to make their own choices in their personal lives without fear of criminal punishment.

The ruling was a significant milestone in India’s journey towards gender equality, as it shifted the focus from criminalising personal morality to promoting individual rights and personal liberty. It sent a clear message that the state should not intervene in private matters between consenting adults, even if they are married.

Conclusion

The journey of adultery law in India has been a long and complicated one, with several landmark cases shaping its course. From the Yusuf Abdul Aziz case, which upheld the protectionist nature of the law, to Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi, which reinforced the patriarchal underpinnings of Section 497, the law reflected a society that viewed women as victims and not as individuals capable of committing adultery. However, the Joseph Shine case in 2018 marked a paradigm shift in the legal landscape, as the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 and decriminalised adultery.