Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay
Supreme Court of India · 10 March 1954 · 5 judges · 1954 AIR 321, 1954 SCR 930
The last sentence of Section 497 IPC, which exempts the wife from punishment as an abettor of adultery, is a special provision for women saved by Article 15(3) and does not violate Articles 14 and 15.
Facts
The appellant was being prosecuted for adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. As soon as the complaint was filed, he applied to the High Court of Bombay under Article 228 of the Constitution to decide whether Section 497 contravenes Articles 14 and 15. Under Section 497 only a man can commit adultery, and its last sentence provides that the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor. The High Court decided against him but granted a certificate under Articles 132(1) and 134(1)(c), and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Questions before the Court
- Whether Section 497 IPC, in exempting the wife from punishment as an abettor of adultery, contravenes Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
What the Court held
- The provision in Section 497 that the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor is a special provision made for women and is saved by Article 15(3).
- Article 15(3) cannot be confined to provisions beneficial to women, and a provision that prohibits punishment is not the same as a licence to commit the offence.
- Article 14 is general and must be read with the other fundamental rights provisions. Sex is a sound classification, and Articles 14 and 15 read together validate the impugned clause.
- The Court did not decide whether the appellant, who is not a citizen of India, could invoke Articles 14 and 15. The appeal was dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment reads Article 15(3) as permitting special provisions for women and refuses to confine the clause to provisions beneficial to women, and treats sex as a valid basis of classification under Article 14 when read with Article 15(3). On that footing it upheld the clause of Section 497 IPC that exempts the wife from liability as an abettor.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The provision complained of is a special provision and it is made for women, therefore it is saved by clause (3). It was argued that clause (3) should be confined to provisions which are beneficial to women and cannot be used to give them a licence to commit and abet crimes. We are unable to read any such restriction into the clause ; nor are we able to agree that a provision which prohibits punishment is tantamount ,to a licence to commit the offence of which punishment has been prohibited.”
“Article 14 is general and must be read with the other provisions which set out the ambit of fundamental rights. Sex is a sound classification and although there can be no discriminate in general on that ground, the Constitution itself provides for special provisions in the case of women and children. The two articles read together validate the impugned clause in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Explained in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. The State of Bombay and Husseinbhoy Laljee
- Case
- Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Case No. 349 of 1951
- Decided
- 10 March 1954
- Bench
- Vivian Bose, Mehar Chand Mahajan (CJ), B.K. Mukherjea, Sudhi Ranjan Das, Ghulam Hasan
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bose J.