Yusuf Abdul Aziz Vs. State Of Bombay & Another On 10 March, 1954

Q: Q. What are the equivalent citations for Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay & Another ?

The equivalence citation areAIR 1954 SC 321 ; [1954] 1 SCR 930 ; 1954 (56) BOMLR 1179 ; 1954 (1) SCJ 385 ; [1954] SCR 930 ; (1954) 1 MLJ 618 ; 1954 -67-LW 610 ; LQ/SC/1954/33 ;

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay & Another?

HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.C. MAHAJAN, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. MUKHERJEA, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. DAS, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIVIAN BOSE, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM HASAN

Open iDraf

Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State Of Bombay & Another

Yusuf Abdul Aziz
v.
State Of Bombay & Another

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Case No. 349 Of 1951 | 10-03-1954

CRIMINAL & PREVENTIVE LAWS

Bose J.

1. The question in this case is whether section 497 of the Indian Penal Code contravenes articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

2. 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).

3. 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. 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 and15. 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).

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties A.A. Pirbhoy, Jindra Lal, I.M. Shroff, M.C. Setalvad, C.K. Daphtary, Paras A. Mehta, R.H. Dhebar, J.B. Dadachanji, Rajender Narain, Advocates.

Bench List

HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.C. MAHAJAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. MUKHERJEA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. DAS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVIAN BOSE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM HASAN

Eq Citation

AIR 1954 SC 321

[1954] 1 SCR 930

1954 (56) BOMLR 1179

1954 (1) SCJ 385

[1954] SCR 930

(1954) 1 MLJ 618

1954 -67-LW 610

LQ/SC/1954/33

HeadNote

Constitutionality — Articles 14, 15 and 228 — Adultery — S. 497 of IPC — Validity — Whether S. 497 which prohibits prosecution of wife as abettor to the offence of adultery committed by husband contravenes Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution — Held, provision, being a special provision made for women, is saved by cl. (3) of Art. 15. (Paras 3 and 4) Article 14 — General provision must be read with other provisions which set out the ambit of fundamental rights — Sex is a sound classification — Discrimination on that ground is prohibited in general but the Constitution itself provides for special provisions in the case of women and children — Art. 14 read with relevant provisions validate the impugned clause in S. 497 of IPC. (Para 5) Writ jurisdiction under Art. 228 — Question of law arising out of pleadings as distinguished from question of law arising out of evidence — Mere fact that evidence is not taken or that case is not tried on merits is not a bar to invoking Art. 228 — It is not necessary that High Court should decide the case one way or other — High Court can decline to answer the question if it takes the view that no question of law arises from the pleadings — It is also open to the High Court to decide that the question of law raised is not fit for determination by it. (Para 2)