The Supreme Court has declared that Section 497 is unconstitutional. Adultery is not a crime. This judgment has overturned the three previous rulings by the Supreme Court on Section 497. The Supreme Court declares Section 497 unconstitutional Adultery law under Section 497 views women as a property of men It allows men to file complaint but doesn't give women the same right Adultery is no longer a crime, the Supreme Court ruled today. The judgment by a five-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra has overturned the previous three rulings on the matter. Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Adultery was an offence and a convict could be sentenced to five-year-jail term. Section defined adultery as an offence committed by a man against a married man if the former engaged in sexual intercourse with the latter's wife. The law had come under sharp criticism for treating women as possession of men. An Italy-based Indian businessman Joseph Shine, who hails from Kerala, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) last year challenging IPC Section 497. He contended that the law is discriminatory. Section 497 reads: "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." Section 497 used to be read with CrPC Section 198(2) in the matters of prosecution for offences against marriage. The combined reading of the adultery laws allowed the aggrieved husband of the married woman in adulterous relationship to file a complaint. But same right was not available to an aggrieved wife if her husband wsa found to be in an adulterous relationship. FIRST SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT The adultery law first came under challenge in 1951 in the Yusuf Aziz versus State of Bombay case. Petitioner contended that the adultery law violated the fundamental right of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The dominant argument in the court hearing was that Section 497, governing adultery law, discriminated against men by not making women equally culpable in an adulterous relationship. It was also argued that adultery law gave a license to women to commit the crime. Three years later in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 497 was valid. It held that Section 497 did not give a license to women to commit adultery. The judgment said that making a special provision for women to escape culpability was constitutionally valid under Article 15(3) that allows such a law. Moreover, in an interesting observation, the Supreme Court said in the judgment that "it is commonly accepted that it is the man who is the seducer, and not the woman." The Supreme Court stated that women could only be a victim of adultery and not a perpetrator of the crime under Section 497. The argument was made to reject the contention that the adultery law was discriminatory against men. However, despite declaring women as "victim only" in the occurrence of the crime of adultery, the court did not allow them to file a complaint. SECOND SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT The next important judgment regarding adultery law under Section 497 came in Sowmithri Vishnu versus Union of India case of 1985. The Centre has cited this judgment in its 2018-affidavit to back Section 497 of the IPC. In Sowmithri Vishnu case, the Supreme Court held that women need not be included as an aggrieved party in the name of making the law even handed. It also explained as to why women should not be involved in prosecution in the cases of adultery. The Supreme Court held that men were not allowed to prosecute their wives for the offence of adultery in order to protect the sanctity of marriage. For the same reason, women could not be allowed to prosecute their husbands. The judgment retained the offence of adultery as a crime committed by a man against another man. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that unmarried women should be brought under the purview of the adultery law. The argument was that if an unmarried man establishes adulterous relationship with a married woman, he is liable for punishment, but if an unmarried woman engages in a sexual intercourse with a married man, she would not be held culpable for the offence of adultery, even though both disturb the sanctity of marriage. The Supreme Court held that bringing such an unmarried woman in the ambit of adultery law under Section 497 would mean a crusade by a woman against another woman. The ambiguity related to adultery law remained unresolved. THIRD SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT In the next big case--V Revathy versus Union of India of 1988--on adultery law, the Supreme Court held that not including women in prosecution of adultery cases promoted "social good". It offered the couple a chance to "make up" and keep the sanctity of marriage intact. The Supreme Court observed that adultery law was a "shield rather than a sword". The court ruled that the existing adultery law did not infringe upon any constitutional provision by restricting the ambit of Section 497 to men. Besides the three Supreme Court judgments, there were two more important legal views in connection with adultery law. The Law Commission of India Report of 1971 (42nd report) and the Malimath Committee on Criminal Law Reforms of 2003 recommended amendment to the adultery law. Both argued to make Section 497 of the IPC gender neutral. Trivia: The Supreme Court bench that dismissed a plea challenging Section 497 had Justice YV Chandrachud on it. Current Supreme Court bench hearing the adultery law case had his son Justice DY Chandrachud on it. It was Justice DY Chandrachud, who made the observation that women could not be treated as commodity by leaving them to the discretion of their husbands in giving consent in matters of adultery. The Supreme Court said in August this year that Section 497 as anti-women to dismiss the argument that the adultery law discriminated against men.