For over a century, adultery has been a criminal offence in New York. However, a bill progressing through the state's legislature now aims to legalise it, potentially ending a rarely enforced law punishable by up to three months in jail.

Adultery prohibitions, still present in several US&nbsp;states, originated to discourage divorces, particularly when infidelity was the sole grounds for legal separation. Traditionally aimed at reducing marital instability, these laws have seen minimal use and are now being challenged.

New York's adultery law, in place since 1907, defines adultery as engaging in sexual intercourse outside marriage. Despite its lengthy existence, enforcement has been exceedingly rare, with only a handful of charges filed since 1972 and even fewer resulting in convictions.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/wion-explains-new-york-the-city-that-never-sleeps-may-soon-lie-in-slumber-under-the-sea-594202">Also read |&nbsp;WION Explains | New York, the city that never sleeps, may soon lie in slumber under the sea</a>

<h2>Push for repeal and changing perspectives</h2>

Assemblyman Charles Lavine, sponsor of the bill to repeal the ban, argued&nbsp;that the law is outdated and reflects an era of moral policing that no longer aligns with contemporary societal norms, as quoted by ABC news.&nbsp;He said that legal authorities should not intrude into consenting adults' private lives.

Legal scholars like Katharine B. Silbaugh suggested that adultery banned&nbsp;historically targeted women, reflecting patriarchal values aimed at controlling women's behaviour. Questions about the constitutionality of adultery laws have arisen, with parallels drawn to the Supreme Court's reconsideration of sodomy laws and same-sex marriage rulings.

New York's repeal efforts are not unprecedented. In the 1960s, a state commission proposed eliminating the adultery law due to its impracticality. However, pushback from religious groups and concerns about endorsing infidelity led to its retention in the penal code.

Also watch |&nbsp;Time is ticking for Donald Trump: New York Attorney General initiates seizure of Trump's assets

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/time-is-ticking-for-donald-trump-new-york-attorney-general-initiates-seizure-of-trumps-assets-703050/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

While most states with adultery laws classify them as misdemeanors, some like Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Michigan treat adultery as felonies. However, states such as Colorado and New Hampshire have moved to repeal these laws, echoing arguments for their obsolescence and potential unconstitutionality.

Recent Supreme Court decisions, notably on sodomy laws and abortion, have implications for adultery statutes. While the Court's stance remains largely theoretical due to the infrequency of adultery charges, evolving interpretations of liberty and privacy rights may influence future legal challenges.

(With inputs from agencies)

For over a century, adultery has been a criminal offence in New York. However, a bill progressing through the state's legislature now aims to legalise it, potentially ending a rarely enforced law punishable by up to three months in jail.

For over a century, adultery has been a criminal offence in New York. However, a bill progressing through the state's legislature now aims to legalise it, potentially ending a rarely enforced law punishable by up to three months in jail. Adultery prohibitions, still present in several US states, originated to discourage divorces, particularly when infidelity was the sole grounds for legal separation. Traditionally aimed at reducing marital instability, these laws have seen minimal use and are now being challenged. New York's adultery law, in place since 1907, defines adultery as engaging in sexual intercourse outside marriage. Despite its lengthy existence, enforcement has been exceedingly rare, with only a handful of charges filed since 1972 and even fewer resulting in convictions. Also read | WION Explains | New York, the city that never sleeps, may soon lie in slumber under the sea Push for repeal and changing perspectives Assemblyman Charles Lavine, sponsor of the bill to repeal the ban, argued that the law is outdated and reflects an era of moral policing that no longer aligns with contemporary societal norms, as quoted by ABC news. He said that legal authorities should not intrude into consenting adults' private lives. Legal scholars like Katharine B. Silbaugh suggested that adultery banned historically targeted women, reflecting patriarchal values aimed at controlling women's behaviour. Questions about the constitutionality of adultery laws have arisen, with parallels drawn to the Supreme Court's reconsideration of sodomy laws and same-sex marriage rulings. New York's repeal efforts are not unprecedented. In the 1960s, a state commission proposed eliminating the adultery law due to its impracticality. However, pushback from religious groups and concerns about endorsing infidelity led to its retention in the penal code. Also watch | Time is ticking for Donald Trump: New York Attorney General initiates seizure of Trump's assets While most states with adultery laws classify them as misdemeanors, some like Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Michigan treat adultery as felonies. However, states such as Colorado and New Hampshire have moved to repeal these laws, echoing arguments for their obsolescence and potential unconstitutionality. Recent Supreme Court decisions, notably on sodomy laws and abortion, have implications for adultery statutes. While the Court's stance remains largely theoretical due to the infrequency of adultery charges, evolving interpretations of liberty and privacy rights may influence future legal challenges. (With inputs from agencies)

Adultery is illegal in New York, but the state may soon reconsider its stance

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the state government cannot begin departmental proceedings against any government employee for being involved in an extramarital relationship.

The court gave this ruling recently on a writ petition filed by two police officers, a man and a woman, who was charged by the state government in 1999 for having illicit relations.

The state government had argued that the couple has violated the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma said adultery cannot be a ground for any departmental proceedings but the affected people can seek a legal remedy, including divorce.

He said an "act of relationship entered by an individual with another female or male while his/her spouse is alive would be an act amounting to adultery."

"However, it will not be a ground for initiating departmental proceedings by the employer," he added.

The judge said it was "left best for the person who may be affected individually to take the remedy and proceed against him/her in civil law or for initiating divorce proceedings as the case may be".

Setting aside the government probe, Justice Sharma said, "What is an immoral life is a debatable question."

He said, according to Indian mythology, Lord Ganesha had Riddhi and Siddhi as life partners.

"Lord Krishna is said to have had 16,000 ''ranis'', but these are all mythological concepts," he said.

"The only aspect which can be understood is that of being faithful to the spouse alone and is a concept understood in relation to the new laws and norms laid down in the society."

Justice Sharma while referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court on the right to privacy said, "The concept of an illicit relationship with regard to leading an immoral life has to be understood taking into consideration the right of an individual to privacy."

The judgment comes amid a debate over the recent dismissal by the Rajasthan government of IPS official Pankaj Choudhary.

The government had accused him of misconduct, citing an extramarital relationship.

The official recently announced plans to contest the Lok Sabha elections.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the state government cannot begin departmental proceedings against any government employee for being involved in an extramarital relationship.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the state government cannot begin departmental proceedings against any government employee for being involved in an extramarital relationship. The court gave this ruling recently on a writ petition filed by two police officers, a man and a woman, who was charged by the state government in 1999 for having illicit relations. The state government had argued that the couple has violated the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma said adultery cannot be a ground for any departmental proceedings but the affected people can seek a legal remedy, including divorce. He said an "act of relationship entered by an individual with another female or male while his/her spouse is alive would be an act amounting to adultery." "However, it will not be a ground for initiating departmental proceedings by the employer," he added. The judge said it was "left best for the person who may be affected individually to take the remedy and proceed against him/her in civil law or for initiating divorce proceedings as the case may be". Setting aside the government probe, Justice Sharma said, "What is an immoral life is a debatable question." He said, according to Indian mythology, Lord Ganesha had Riddhi and Siddhi as life partners. "Lord Krishna is said to have had 16,000 ''ranis'', but these are all mythological concepts," he said. "The only aspect which can be understood is that of being faithful to the spouse alone and is a concept understood in relation to the new laws and norms laid down in the society." Justice Sharma while referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court on the right to privacy said, "The concept of an illicit relationship with regard to leading an immoral life has to be understood taking into consideration the right of an individual to privacy." The judgment comes amid a debate over the recent dismissal by the Rajasthan government of IPS official Pankaj Choudhary. The government had accused him of misconduct, citing an extramarital relationship. The official recently announced plans to contest the Lok Sabha elections.

Extramarital affair no ground for action against government workers: Rajasthan High Court

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018. The gush of judgements has left most people dazzled and some disgruntled. Reactions varied, from uninhibited praise to outright disapproval. Nonetheless, the apex court’s performance gave people in general an occasion to reiterate their faith in the judiciary.&nbsp;

In some instances the court demolished established traditions, in another, it overturned its earlier verdict — because those rulings had failed in the constitutional test. Seizing upon the convenience at hand, political parties have reacted differently. So have social organisations and activists of varied hues. &nbsp;

There were three verdicts last month, which were of a social-churning nature to the extent of ensuring gender justice, and they are perhaps all the more significant because they have set the tone for an India where equality and a life with dignity are not to be confined to statute books, but be seen where they are needed the most. They are important also because they have come despite stiff resistance from vested groups — social, religious and political. Some of them are already preparing to seek judicial reviews against the orders.&nbsp;

The first pathbreaking ruling to come was the court’s decision to decriminalise same-sex relationships. The LGBT community had been for years waging a battle against the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that had turned them into criminals over their sexual orientation. In 2009, the Delhi High Court had shown the way by striking down the criminality clause, in the Naz Foundation case. 
 
The High Court had said that the Section relating to criminality violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. But its efforts went in vain as the Supreme Court restored the criminal provision. Early last month, the court showed courage in overturning its own verdict on the ground that the criminalisation part of Section 377 violated the right to equality and the right to live with dignity — both enshrined in the Constitution as fundamental rights. It can now be proudly said that India is no longer on the list of 70-plus nations that criminalise same-sex relationships.&nbsp; 
 
The second historic ruling of a social kind was another instance of decriminalisation: That of adultery. The apex court knocked down Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that the provision had not treated men and women equally, that it was arbitrary, and that it was violative of the right to equality and the right to equal opportunity to women. One of the judges on the five-judge Bench, Justice RF Nariman, stated that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judges agreed that adultery can be a civil offence, and be cited as a reason for divorce etc.&nbsp;

In the third instance of a similar kind, in the last week of September, a five-judge Bench through a majority verdict, directed that the venerated Sabarimala temple in Kerala be opened up for women of all ages. Certain provisions of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which apply to the Sabarimala temple, banned women of menstruating age from entering the shrine, reigned supreme until now. &nbsp;

It does seem that the Supreme Court has with a messianic zeal, decided to break old, though far from rusty, shackles. These three judgements were preceded by another historic court ruling, rendering as unconstitutional the practice of instant triple divorce (by the male, of course) among Indian Muslims. One does hope that more such verdicts will follow, and contribute to the creation of as equal a society as is possible.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018.

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018. The gush of judgements has left most people dazzled and some disgruntled. Reactions varied, from uninhibited praise to outright disapproval. Nonetheless, the apex court’s performance gave people in general an occasion to reiterate their faith in the judiciary. In some instances the court demolished established traditions, in another, it overturned its earlier verdict — because those rulings had failed in the constitutional test. Seizing upon the convenience at hand, political parties have reacted differently. So have social organisations and activists of varied hues. There were three verdicts last month, which were of a social-churning nature to the extent of ensuring gender justice, and they are perhaps all the more significant because they have set the tone for an India where equality and a life with dignity are not to be confined to statute books, but be seen where they are needed the most. They are important also because they have come despite stiff resistance from vested groups — social, religious and political. Some of them are already preparing to seek judicial reviews against the orders. The first pathbreaking ruling to come was the court’s decision to decriminalise same-sex relationships. The LGBT community had been for years waging a battle against the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that had turned them into criminals over their sexual orientation. In 2009, the Delhi High Court had shown the way by striking down the criminality clause, in the Naz Foundation case. The High Court had said that the Section relating to criminality violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. But its efforts went in vain as the Supreme Court restored the criminal provision. Early last month, the court showed courage in overturning its own verdict on the ground that the criminalisation part of Section 377 violated the right to equality and the right to live with dignity — both enshrined in the Constitution as fundamental rights. It can now be proudly said that India is no longer on the list of 70-plus nations that criminalise same-sex relationships. The second historic ruling of a social kind was another instance of decriminalisation: That of adultery. The apex court knocked down Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that the provision had not treated men and women equally, that it was arbitrary, and that it was violative of the right to equality and the right to equal opportunity to women. One of the judges on the five-judge Bench, Justice RF Nariman, stated that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judges agreed that adultery can be a civil offence, and be cited as a reason for divorce etc. In the third instance of a similar kind, in the last week of September, a five-judge Bench through a majority verdict, directed that the venerated Sabarimala temple in Kerala be opened up for women of all ages. Certain provisions of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which apply to the Sabarimala temple, banned women of menstruating age from entering the shrine, reigned supreme until now. It does seem that the Supreme Court has with a messianic zeal, decided to break old, though far from rusty, shackles. These three judgements were preceded by another historic court ruling, rendering as unconstitutional the practice of instant triple divorce (by the male, of course) among Indian Muslims. One does hope that more such verdicts will follow, and contribute to the creation of as equal a society as is possible. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Dazzling array of Supreme Court verdicts enforces gender justice and dignity 

The court bore allegiance to its transformative vision in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India, when it struck down the anachronistic adultery law. The law was not only governed by paternalistic beliefs, but it also totally disregarded the concept of autonomy of an individual.&nbsp;

While striking down the provision, CJI Dipak Misra placed reliance upon the privacy judgement where the court had acknowledged the autonomy of an individual and opined that the element of consent or connivance of the husband as prescribed in the section, subverted the position of women and were in violation of Article 21.&nbsp;

The section, as it existed, did not punish the act of adultery per se, rather it protected the propriety right of the husband over his wife. The wife was regarded as the property of the husband and in that regard, he was licenced to use her as a chattel or as a licensor of that chattel he could allow her to be used. The wife was not vested with any agency under the law and it was for the same reason that the third-party was regarded as the seducer and she was always the victim of the crime.&nbsp;

Most often, it is argued that adultery is the reason for the failure of a marriage, however, it is to be understood that if the individuals in a wedlock have lost the moral commitment then any punishment which is inflicted upon a third-party is unlikely to change that situation.&nbsp;

While striking down the law, Justice Chandrachud extensively discussed about the 'sexual autonomy' and 'sexual agency' of a woman and how this section had commemorated the gender stereotype that only men possess 'sexual agency' as they are the seducers of the crime, and women, on the contrary, are devoid of any such 'sexual agency' and thus, they can only be seduced. Justice Indu Malhotra has relied upon the principles of criminal law to substantiate her stance and opined that the adultery law had no rationale when tested against the basic principles of criminalisation.&nbsp;

It is to be noted that, not all immoral acts are penalised, but it does not follow that those acts are considered righteous by the legislature. The state cannot intervene between the private matters of individuals and criminal sanctions cannot be imposed upon every act, and therefore, it was essential to declare such an antediluvian law, as 'unconstitutional'.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The court bore allegiance to its transformative vision in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India, when it struck down the anachronistic adultery law. The law was not only governed by paternalistic beliefs, but it also totally disregarded the concept of autonomy of an individual.

The court bore allegiance to its transformative vision in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India, when it struck down the anachronistic adultery law. The law was not only governed by paternalistic beliefs, but it also totally disregarded the concept of autonomy of an individual. While striking down the provision, CJI Dipak Misra placed reliance upon the privacy judgement where the court had acknowledged the autonomy of an individual and opined that the element of consent or connivance of the husband as prescribed in the section, subverted the position of women and were in violation of Article 21. The section, as it existed, did not punish the act of adultery per se, rather it protected the propriety right of the husband over his wife. The wife was regarded as the property of the husband and in that regard, he was licenced to use her as a chattel or as a licensor of that chattel he could allow her to be used. The wife was not vested with any agency under the law and it was for the same reason that the third-party was regarded as the seducer and she was always the victim of the crime. Most often, it is argued that adultery is the reason for the failure of a marriage, however, it is to be understood that if the individuals in a wedlock have lost the moral commitment then any punishment which is inflicted upon a third-party is unlikely to change that situation. While striking down the law, Justice Chandrachud extensively discussed about the 'sexual autonomy' and 'sexual agency' of a woman and how this section had commemorated the gender stereotype that only men possess 'sexual agency' as they are the seducers of the crime, and women, on the contrary, are devoid of any such 'sexual agency' and thus, they can only be seduced. Justice Indu Malhotra has relied upon the principles of criminal law to substantiate her stance and opined that the adultery law had no rationale when tested against the basic principles of criminalisation. It is to be noted that, not all immoral acts are penalised, but it does not follow that those acts are considered righteous by the legislature. The state cannot intervene between the private matters of individuals and criminal sanctions cannot be imposed upon every act, and therefore, it was essential to declare such an antediluvian law, as 'unconstitutional'. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 SC should be hailed for decriminalising colonial-era Adultery law

The Supreme Court's judgement which on Thursday scrapped the penal provision on adultery received kudos from leading women advocates who dubbed it as a "strong" and "progressive" decision on gender equality.

Senior advocate Rebecca John and lawyers Aishwarya Bhati and Menaka Guruswamy, termed as correct the apex court's observation that the adultery law dented the individuality of women and treated them as "chattel of husbands".

While John said Section 497 (adultery) of the Indian Penal Code should have been struck down 50 years ago, Bhati opined that the verdict will go a long way in ensuring that women's rights are "strongly and robustly embedded" in the system and cannot be taken away.

Guruswamy termed the verdict as a good decision on gender equality and said that "it makes perfect sense as clearly the Supreme Court is saying that men and women within marriage are equal".

John said: "It should never have been a part of modern India's penal code because it was an extremely archaic patriarchal law. Too late but a welcome move." 
Bhati said the law was "one of those colonial baggages that we had to let go of as it was from an era where women were treated as chattel of men and wife was the property of the husband".

The apex court's five-judge Constitution bench was unanimous in striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery and holding it as manifestly arbitrary, archaic law which is violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women.

The Supreme Court's judgement which on Thursday scrapped the penal provision on adultery received kudos from leading women advocates who dubbed it as a "strong" and "progressive" decision on gender equality.

The Supreme Court's judgement which on Thursday scrapped the penal provision on adultery received kudos from leading women advocates who dubbed it as a "strong" and "progressive" decision on gender equality. Senior advocate Rebecca John and lawyers Aishwarya Bhati and Menaka Guruswamy, termed as correct the apex court's observation that the adultery law dented the individuality of women and treated them as "chattel of husbands". While John said Section 497 (adultery) of the Indian Penal Code should have been struck down 50 years ago, Bhati opined that the verdict will go a long way in ensuring that women's rights are "strongly and robustly embedded" in the system and cannot be taken away. Guruswamy termed the verdict as a good decision on gender equality and said that "it makes perfect sense as clearly the Supreme Court is saying that men and women within marriage are equal". John said: "It should never have been a part of modern India's penal code because it was an extremely archaic patriarchal law. Too late but a welcome move." Bhati said the law was "one of those colonial baggages that we had to let go of as it was from an era where women were treated as chattel of men and wife was the property of the husband". The apex court's five-judge Constitution bench was unanimous in striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery and holding it as manifestly arbitrary, archaic law which is violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women.

SC's adultery verdict strong, progressive on gender equality, say women lawyers

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, while reading out the verdict today, described the law as "manifestly arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" stating that adultery cannot be a criminal offence and that a husband is not the master of a woman.&nbsp;

CJI Misra maintained that women must be treated equally as men.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Parameters of fundamental rights should include rights of women. Individual dignity important in a sanctified society.System can't treat women unequally. Women can't be asked to think what a society desires:CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Sec 497(Adultery) <a href="https://t.co/FMRLxi5n9t">pic.twitter.com/FMRLxi5n9t</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045181361902903297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Equality is the governing principle of a system. Husband is not the master of the wife," the apex court ruled.&nbsp;

However, the top court noted that adultery can form the basis for the dissolution of a marriage and can be ground for divorce.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Section 497 (Adultery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unconstitutional: Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra <a href="https://t.co/gRDrl3TpWy">pic.twitter.com/gRDrl3TpWy</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045182687709880320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women and views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage," CJI Misra read out the verdict.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women &amp; views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage: CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Section 497 (Adultery) of IPC
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045181366109753344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The five-judge bench also pronounced that mere adultery cannot be called a crime unless something is added. "It is a matter of absolute privacy," the Court ruled.&nbsp;

The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9xykP6-Gn1k" width="560"></iframe>

India's adultery law states that: "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."&nbsp;

Another part of the law which drew much criticism was that the law permitted a woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but no such provision was available for the wife of the adulterous man.

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery.

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, while reading out the verdict today, described the law as "manifestly arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" stating that adultery cannot be a criminal offence and that a husband is not the master of a woman. CJI Misra maintained that women must be treated equally as men. Parameters of fundamental rights should include rights of women. Individual dignity important in a sanctified society.System can't treat women unequally. Women can't be asked to think what a society desires:CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Sec 497(Adultery) pic.twitter.com/FMRLxi5n9t — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × "Equality is the governing principle of a system. Husband is not the master of the wife," the apex court ruled. However, the top court noted that adultery can form the basis for the dissolution of a marriage and can be ground for divorce. Section 497 (Adultery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unconstitutional: Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra pic.twitter.com/gRDrl3TpWy — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × "Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women and views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage," CJI Misra read out the verdict. Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women & views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage: CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Section 497 (Adultery) of IPC — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × The five-judge bench also pronounced that mere adultery cannot be called a crime unless something is added. "It is a matter of absolute privacy," the Court ruled. The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman. India's adultery law states that: "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." Another part of the law which drew much criticism was that the law permitted a woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but no such provision was available for the wife of the adulterous man.

Adultery not a criminal offence, husband not the master: Supreme Court quashes Section 497

The Supreme Court of India is likely to pronounce its verdict on decriminalisation of&nbsp;Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision).

The case will be heard by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice AM KHawilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indur Malhotra.&nbsp;

The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman.&nbsp;

India's adultery law states that: "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."&nbsp;

Another part which has drew a row of criticism is that the law permits woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but there is no such provision for the wife of the adulterous man. She cannot file a complaint against her husband or the other woman.

Interestingly, the adultery law, like much of Indian law, is a remnant of Victorian-era law handed down to the country by the British.&nbsp;

England itself has dropped the adultery law from its statute books.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India is likely to pronounce its verdict on decriminalisation of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision). The case will be heard by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice AM KHawilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indur Malhotra.

The Supreme Court of India is likely to pronounce its verdict on decriminalisation of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision). The case will be heard by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice AM KHawilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indur Malhotra. The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman. India's adultery law states that: "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." Another part which has drew a row of criticism is that the law permits woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but there is no such provision for the wife of the adulterous man. She cannot file a complaint against her husband or the other woman. Interestingly, the adultery law, like much of Indian law, is a remnant of Victorian-era law handed down to the country by the British. England itself has dropped the adultery law from its statute books.

Supreme Court likely to pronounce verdict on discriminatory adultery law today

adultery-law

Adultery Law, News on Adultery Law, stories on Adultery Law, articles on Adultery Law, Adultery Law stories at Wion, Adultery Law news, Adultery Law latest news