The world changes rapidly but societies are resistant to change. Legal or judicial mechanisms, once set in place, more often than not fail to acknowledge or reflect the changes. Little wonder then that judges are generally seen as men far removed from ground realities. The law for them is sacrosanct irrespective of the harm it can cause to societies in changing circumstances.
Thankfully the Supreme Court is seized of a matter concerning adultery. Under existing Indian law, namely Section 497 of IPC, a man committing adultery would earn a seven-year jail term, whereas the woman involved in the act would go unpunished. An argument now advanced is that the woman is as guilty as the man. Fact is that adultery is not uncommon, even if this is unacceptable in conservative societies like in India. The law in question is over 150 years old. Through several generations and faced with currents and cross-currents, Indian society today is vastly different from what it was over a century ago. But law remains the same, unless a change is effected on a piecemeal level as is sought to be done in the present case through a Public Interest Litigation.
In several countries the laws on adultery have changed. Notably our neighbouring countries, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and China have de-criminalized adultery. Predictably, the notable exceptions in this part of the world are the Islamist nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh alongside India. The issue, per se, should not limit itself to the discrimination in law between men and women, but to the issue of adultery and the near-life jail term – seven years — accorded to the guilty. Licentious behaviour is not acceptable in any society. There have to be safeguards as also checks and balances, but in ways that accommodate the circumstances of a changing world vis-à-vis slow-changing societies.
It is a fact that several Indian laws are now archaic. The Indian legal system built on the lines of the British
laws has often ignored the realities existing in local societies. Parliament is a forum to introduce new laws
and change old laws. But, year after year, hardly any discussion takes place in the two houses before bills are passed. More laws are coming into force in a flurry. In this process, there is more of disruption of proceedings and less of saner arguments. A century is a long-enough time to revisit an Indian law. The 158-year-old law on adultery, for instance, needs closer scrutiny.