Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
YUSUF ABDUL AZIZ
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF BOMBAY ANDHUSSEINBHOY LALJEE.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
10/03/1954
BENCH:
BOSE, VIVIAN
BENCH:
BOSE, VIVIAN
MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
HASAN, GHULAM
CITATION:
1954 AIR 321 1954 SCR 930
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1985 SC1618 (10)
ACT:
Constitution of India, arts. 14 and 15-Section 497 of the
Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)-Whether ultra vires the
Constitution.
HEADNOTE:
Held, that s. 497 of the Indian Penal Code does not of lend
arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLANTE JURLSDICTION: Case No. 349 of 1951.
Appeal under article 132 (1) of the Constitution of India
from the Judgment and Order dated the 26th June, 1951, of
the High Court of Judicature,at Bombay (Chagla C. J. and
Gajendragadkar J.) in Criminal Application No. 345 of 1951.
A.A. Peerbhoy, Jindra Lal and I. N. Shroff for the
appellant.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India (Porus A. Mehta,
with them) for respondent No. 1.
931
J.B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain for respondent No. 2.
1954. March 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bose J.-The question in this case is whether section 497 of
the Indian Penal Code contravenes articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution.
The appellant is 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 to determine
the constitutional question mentioned above under article
228 of the Constitution. The High Court decided against him
but granted him a certificate under articles 132 (1) and 134
(1) (c).
Under section 497 the offence of adultery can only be
committed by a man but in the absence of any provision to
the contrary the woman would be punishable as an abettor.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The last sentence in section 497 prohibits this. It runs-
"In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an
abettor." It is said that this offends articles 14 and 15.
The portion of article 15 on which the appellant relies is
this:
"The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of............... sex."
But what he overlooks is that is subject to clause (3) which
runs
"Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making
any special provision for women.......... "
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
932
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.
The appellant is not a citizen of India. It was argued that
he could not invoke articles 14 and 15 for that reason. The
High Court held otherwise. It is not necessary for us to
decide this question in view of our decision on the other
issue.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for respondent No.1 : R. H. Dhebar.
933