Adultery must stay a crime to protect sanctity of marriage: Centre tells Supreme Court

Striking down section 497 which provides for punishment only to a man for having extra-marital sexual ties with the wife of another man, will destroy the institution of marriage, the Ministry told the apex court.

The Supreme Court of India.

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that adultery should remain a punishable offence to protect the sanctity of marriage. Seeking dismissal of a plea challenging the validity of the penal law on adultery, the Home Ministry contended that the Section 497 "supports, safeguards and protects the institution of marriage". Striking down section 497 which provides for punishment only to a man for having extra-marital sexual ties with the wife of another man, will destroy the institution of marriage, the Ministry told the apex court. "It is submitted that striking down section 497 of IPC and Section 198(2) of the CrPC will prove to be detrimental to the intrinsic Indian ethos which gives paramount importance to the institution and sanctity of marriage. "The provisions of law, under challenge in the present writ, have been specifically created by the legislature in its wisdom, to protect and safeguard the sanctity of marriage, keeping in mind the unique structure and culture of the Indian society," it said in an affidavit. The Centre also referred to Justice Malimath Committee report on reforms in the criminal justice system which had suggested making section 497 gender-neutral. "The decriminalisation of adultery will result in weakening the sanctity of a marital bond and will result in its laxity," it said. Section 497 of the 158-year-old IPC says, "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." The top court had referred the PIL challenging the constitutional validity of the adultery law to the Constitution Bench in January this year. The PIL had been filed by one Joseph Shine, an expatriate Indian living in Italy. Joseph, in his plea, said that Section 497 was "prima facie unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates against men and violates Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution". He said "when the sexual intercourse takes place with the consent of both the parties, there is no good reason for excluding one party from the liability." (With inputs from PTI)