What was the constitutional issue in this case?

Whether Section 497 IPC (adultery) violated Articles 14 and 15 by treating women differently from men.

How did the Court justify Section 497 IPC?

The Court held that Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women; hence Section 497 did not offend Articles 14–15.

Did the case say women can commit crimes with impunity?

No. It only upheld a specific legislative policy then in force; it did not grant a general licence to offend.

What was the final outcome?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of Section 497 IPC against the equality challenge.

Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State (AIR 1951 SC 321)

Supreme Court of India 1951 Constitutional Bench AIR 1951 SC 321 Constitutional Law • IPC ~6 min

CASE_TITLE: Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State (AIR 1951 SC 321) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 497 IPC, Article 14, Article 15 SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 15(3), special provisions for women, adultery offence PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: yusuf-abdul-aziz-v-state-air-1951-sc-321

Quick Summary

The question: Is Section 497 IPC (adultery) against Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution? The appellant, charged with adultery, challenged the law as discriminatory because women were not made liable. The Supreme Court held: No violation. Under Article 15(3), the State may make special provisions for women. Therefore, Section 497 (as it then stood) survived the equality challenge. Appeal dismissed.

```

Issues

Does Section 497 IPC violate Article 14 (equality)?
Is it saved by Article 15(3) (special provisions for women)?

Rules

Article 14: Equality before law; like persons must be treated alike.

Article 15: No discrimination on grounds of sex, etc. Article 15(3) permits special provisions for women.

Section 497 IPC (then): Penalized the man for adultery; the woman involved was not punishable.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for facts in Yusuf Abdul Aziz adultery case

Charge: Appellant prosecuted for adultery under Section 497 IPC.

High Court step: He moved the Bombay High Court under Article 228 to decide the constitutional issue.

Certificate: High Court decided against him but granted certificate under Articles 132(1) & 134(1)(c).

Equality plea: He argued Section 497 was discriminatory because women bore no liability, not even as abettors.

Women’s benefit: Court noted Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women.

Outcome: Appeal dismissed; Section 497 upheld against Articles 14–15 challenge.

Arguments

Appellant

Section 497 treats men and women unequally; violates Article 14.
Exempting women even as abettors is arbitrary.
State cannot give a “licence” to commit a crime.

Respondent (State)

Article 15(3) supports special protection for women.
Classification has a constitutional basis, not hostile discrimination.
Policy choice of the legislature within its competence.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld Section 497 IPC against the equality challenge. Relying on Article 15(3), the Court said the Constitution permits special provisions for women. Therefore, Section 497 did not violate Articles 14 or 15. Appeal dismissed.

Ratio

A law that treats women differently may be constitutionally valid if it fits within Article 15(3). Section 497’s policy of not punishing the woman partner in adultery was held to be such a special provision, hence not hit by Articles 14–15.

Why It Matters

Shows how Article 15(3) can save a classification involving women.
Explains the balance between equality and protective discrimination.
Useful for exam answers on Articles 14–15 and IPC policy choices.

Key Takeaways

Art. 15(3) permits special provisions for women.
Section 497 (then) survived Art. 14–15 challenge.
Courts distinguish policy choice from hostile discrimination.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “15(3) Saves 497.”

Equality? Check Article 14 claim.
Exception? Apply Article 15(3) for women.
Result: If it fits, the law stands.

IRAC Outline

Part	Content
Issue	Does Section 497 IPC offend Articles 14 and 15 by exempting women from liability?
Rule	Article 14 equality; Article 15 non-discrimination; Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women.
Application	Exemption for women seen as a special provision permitted by Article 15(3), not hostile discrimination.
Conclusion	Section 497 upheld; no violation of Articles 14–15; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of the laws.
Article 15(3): Permits special provisions for women and children.
Section 497 IPC (then): Adultery offence penalising the man, not the woman involved.