The Supreme Court on Friday 02 December, 2011 held:
“The provision under IPC Section 497 is currently under criticism from certain quarters for showing a strong gender bias for it makes the position of a married woman almost as a property of her husband.” So it took 57 years for wisdom to dawn on the apex court to realize the true nature and purpose of the clause under Section 497. I have dwelt on this subject in detail in the following website.
In a 1954 judgment (AIR 1954 S C 321 “Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs the State of Bombay” the Supreme Court held that the immunity for women under IPC Sec:497 was justified under special provisions in the case of women and children by clause (3) of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. How can immunity in a criminal law be termed a special provision? I do not understand.
Tracing the history of this provision in IPC, I had stated that Lord Macaulay deliberately introduced this provision, because he held the Hindu culture and the position of Hindu women in low esteem. It was exactly for this reason Section 497 granted immunity to women. The Supreme Court has found it out now.