497 vs None

IPC Section 497 was one of the oldest and most controversial provisions of the Indian Penal Code — a law of 1860 vintage that criminalised sexual intercourse with a married woman without her husband's consent or connivance. The law's structure revealed its historical premise starkly: only the 'outsider man' could be prosecuted; the married woman was treated as a victim of her seducer (not a consenting agent); and the married woman's husband was effectively vested with a property-like right over her sexuality — if he consented, there was no crime. The Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) — a five-judge Constitution Bench that considered the matter on a reference from a two-judge bench — declared Section 497 unconstitutional on three independent grounds: First, it violated Article 14 (right to equality) because the classification of 'only the man is criminally liable' had no rational nexus to any legitimate state objective. Second, it violated Article 15 (prohibition on sex-based discrimination) because the wife of the adulteress was criminalised while the husband of the adulterer was not. Third, and most profoundly, it violated Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) because a woman's sexual autonomy is constitutionally protected — marriage does not transfer ownership of a woman's sexuality to her husband. Chief Justice Dipak Misra observed: 'A woman cannot be asked to think that her husband is her lord and master.' Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (now Chief Justice) wrote that Section 497 treated the woman as chattel and denied her equal citizenship. The BNS 2024 did not include any equivalent provision — explicitly acknowledging that the legislative response to Joseph Shine is the permanent removal of adultery from criminal law.