Adultery Law and the Future of the Family System

Last week, the supreme court of India announced a landmark verdict quashing the 150 years old adultery law. As expected, it attracted widespread criticism, outpour of emotions and knee jerk reactions from the facebookers and social media (armchair) warriors.

The moral brigade was utterly, absolutely demoralized, and declared that the true Indian marriage and family system would be dead in a few years.

Netizens, depending on their current situation, were either afraid that their wives would start sleeping with anyone except them, or happy that they would (legally) sleep with someone else’s wife!

There was a flurry of jokes on social media about a certain celebrity couple, and few padosans. And there were even speculations that the judges who wrote this verdict did it to legalize their own affairs!

Sadly, the main point of the truth was, as always, buried under all that noise.

To know that truth, let’s see what the adultery law was. (This is my understanding of the law, which is written in my own words. If you want to debate on the nitty-gritties of this law, find a lawyer and argue with him/her!).

The adultery law stated that “If a married woman has sex with another man WITHOUT HER HUSBAND’S CONSENT, her husband could initiate criminal proceedings against the woman’s partner and send him to prison (up to 5 years!). However, the woman would be considered innocent and would not face any criminal charges”.

In relating this archaic law with the sanctity of marriage, we overlooked some important aspects which the law inherently stated:

1.      A married woman is the property of her husband, since she needs a permission from her husband to sleep with anyone else.

2.      The husband however, does not require such permission from his wife to sleep around (provided the women he sleeps with are unmarried, and not someone else’s property!).

3.      If a man sleeps with the wife of another man without his permission, the husband can press criminal charges against him (akin to pressing criminal charges for using his property without his consent).

Thus the law was completely biased and inherently bigoted, and I am sure it must have been blatantly misused by so many disgruntled husbands against other men, as all such one-sided laws are often used.

Which brings us to a far more crucial point.

Should the government dictate what two consenting adults do behind the closed doors?

I often observe this growing trend of confusing between legality and morality.

Law is supposed to uphold what is legal, not what is moral.

What do I mean by this? Let me explain.

Law is supposed to be black and white. You steal something, you are guilty. You don’t steal, you are not guilty. If you kill someone in anger or in cold blood, you are guilty. If you kill in self-defense, you are not.

There are no grey shades in a law.

Morals change person to person. For one person, eating meat is as natural as breathing, while for someone else, it’s a grave sin.

Same goes for drinking habits of people, and sex.

When legality and morality mix in a law, it leads to ambiguity in law.

Ambiguity in law is a recipe for disaster, since it’s a highly fertile ground for corruption. It gives the authorities free reign to interpret the law as it suits them and exploit and blackmail the masses.

And finally, such corrupt practices destroy a society or government systems. The fallen empire of communism is the best example of such a corrupt system.

So, let’s understand the fact that the family system will not be destroyed by presence or absence of a law which most people did not know existed, and most people do not still understand. The thought itself is absurd!

Let’s welcome this decision by the judges who acknowledged the right of the women on their own bodies and get on with our lives!