Adultery provision struck down for patriarchal discrimination, violating equality, dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was held unconstitutional because it criminalised consensual sexual conduct only where a married woman was involved, excluded the woman from liability, and made the husband's consent or connivance legally decisive. The Court found this framework to be based on patriarchal stereotypes, to deny substantive equality, and to infringe dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy under Articles 14, 15(1) and 21. Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was struck down to the extent it applied to offences under Section 497, and earlier decisions upholding these provisions were overruled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 survives if Section 497 is struck down; and (iii) Whether the earlier decisions upholding the provision remain good law.

Issue (i): Whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The provision criminalised consensual sexual conduct only when a married woman was involved, excluded the woman from punishment as an abettor, treated the husband's consent or connivance as determinative, and denied the wife any corresponding agency or remedy. The Court held that this structure rested on patriarchal assumptions, perpetuated sex-based stereotypes, denied substantive equality, and treated women as subordinate to sbandal control. It was also held that the provision infringed dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy, and was manifestly arbitrary because it lacked an adequately determining principle.

Conclusion: Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was held unconstitutional and struck down as violating Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 survives if Section 497 is struck down.

Analysis: Section 198(2) was a procedural provision linked to prosecution for the offence of adultery. Once the substantive offence itself was held unconstitutional, the procedural restriction that only the husband could be treated as aggrieved could no longer stand on its own.

Conclusion: Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held unconstitutional to the extent that it applied to offences under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier decisions upholding the provision remain good law.

Analysis: The earlier rulings proceeded on a formal and outdated understanding of equality and treated the exemption of women as a protective measure. They did not address the broader constitutional challenges based on arbitrariness, dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy. In light of the expanded understanding of fundamental rights, those decisions could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The earlier decisions upholding Section 497 and Section 198(2) were overruled.

Final Conclusion: The law of adultery, as embodied in the impugned provisions, was declared inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality, liberty, dignity and privacy, and was removed from the statute book.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision that criminalises consensual sexual conduct on the basis of patriarchal stereotypes, denies women equal agency within marriage, and makes criminal liability depend on the husband's consent or connivance is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15 and 21.

---