<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (9) TMI 1792 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278439</link>
    <description>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&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 17:53:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=556171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1792 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278439</link>
      <description>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&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>