The debate over adultery is confusing and misleading (Editorial page – “This too is a right”, January 6). That a woman has the right to choose her partner because it is a matter of her individual right and something that is a private affair, and, more importantly, that she is the decision maker in this process are points that are likely to create imbalances within the social system.
Remaining within wedlock and then having multiple partners by defending it on the grounds of privacy and individual freedom enjoyed by an adult are bound to be disruptive. Loyalty, love and faithfulness are essential qualities in one’s married life. A closely related issue that is increasingly affecting the world today is the rise in family disputes and the collapse of the institution of marriage.
Miniamma K.C.,
Ernakulam, Kerala
The opinions expressed by the writer are outrageous. Expressions such as ‘consensual sex’, ‘voluntary sexual activity’ and ‘sexual privacy’ cannot in anyway mitigate the immorality of an adulterous act. If a married person can have a physical relationship outside his or her marriage by claiming it to be a matter of right with least regard for the sanctity of the marriage, the institution of marriage is bound to crumble soon. If both partners in a marriage indulge in infidelity and drift away from the marital bond, what will happen to the welfare of children born out of the wedlock? When the writer argues that an unfaithful partner cannot be tolerated, what is wrong if an extramarital affair is visited with punitive provisions? When moral compulsions are flouted, there will be increased instances of crimes. What will happen if an act of rape is defended as consensual sex? In the same token, what will happen if a consensual sex is sought to be projected as rape? If adultery is not punishable, ‘eve-teasing’ is no offence at all. The contention that law on adultery is archaic in nature and hence needs a rethink is laughable as the foundations of most of our personal laws, irrespective of the religion, are in vogue for several decades. A reference to foreign jurisprudence too is unimpressive. Expecting courts to test the constitutional validity of immorality is most unfortunate.
V. Lakshmanan,
Tirupur, Tamil Nadu
The petition challenging the penal provisions for adultery as provided for in Section 497 of the IPC touches upon some of the most controversial issues we face today such as gender inequality and the scope of privacy as a fundamental right. Drafted in the Victorian era, Section 497 is archaic and not in tune with the needs and values that prevail in a modern, progressive society.
The penal provisions not only degrade a woman by denying her the power to sue her husband or the adulterer in case the husband commits the adultery but also rob her of the right to sexual privacy. Section 497 is a blow against the right to equality and liberty of women. The ‘union of the trinity’, liberty, social equality and fraternity, has been reiterated time and again by the framers of the Constitution. Delinking one from the other will defeat the very purpose of democracy.
Debanjana Chakraborty
Bengaluru
