8
“In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.” It is said that this offends Articles 14 and 15.
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 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 discrimination 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.
