Activists hail SC verdict on adultery
New Delhi, Sep 27 : Activists and lawyers welcomed the Supreme Court's landmark verdict on decriminalising adultery, saying patriarchal control over a women's body was unacceptable.
The Supreme Court on Thursday decriminalised adultery after striking down a British era law -- Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code -- terming it as unconstitutional, archaic and manifestly arbitrary.
Supreme Court lawyer Shilpi Jain told IANS that the law was sexist.
"Even 20 years ago, I have said the law should be struck down as it is sexist. It was, no doubt, an archaic law. In today's time, the law was irrelevant, especially when many marriages were broken and divorces take years to happen," she said.
"It was much needed the law is struck down. We have even legitimised live-in relationships and after that is legitimised, how can you question adultery.
"The verdict was the need of the hour and in the modern time, women need some breathing space and by doing away with this the law has given some breathing space to them," Jain added.
Social activist Ranjana Kumari too welcomed the judgment, saying "patriarchal control over women's body unacceptable".
"We welcome the judgement by the Supreme Court striking down the 158-year-old law based on Victorian values, in Section 497 of Penal code, which treats women as property of husbands and criminalises adultery. Patriarchal control over women's body unacceptable," she tweeted.
Rekha Sharma, Chairperson of the National Commission for Women in a tweet said: "Women are not the property of their husbands.
"I welcome the Supreme Court's verdict to strike down Section 497 and abolish the outdated adultery law as a criminal offence. Women are not the property of their husbands. This decision is not only for all the women but it is also a gender-neutral judgement."
Senior lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan said it was "another fine judgement" by the apex court.
"Another fine judgement striking down the antiquated law, which treats women as property of husbands and criminalises adultery (only of the man who sleeps with someone's wife). Adultery can be ground for divorce but not criminal," Bhushan said.
Supreme Court Lawyer and Congress National Media Panellist Jaiveer Shergill also hailed the judgment.
"Much needed judgment delivered by Supreme Court - the words 'Husband is not the master of the wife' should be 'etched in stone' in every marital household - gender equality wins over regressive archaic law," he tweeted.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
