Challenging Adultery and Its Dimensions

Synopsis: Section 497 has been a controversial section in independent India. Its constitutionality
was challenged way back in 1954 and since then it has been subject to various debates. India has
undergone various changes in its social structure, but the concept of adultery has remained same
since its codification through second amendment of IPC in 1873. It is necessary to understand
the rationale behind such an old law and reasons behind its frivolous protection by apex court.
This is core idea of this paper is to understand the idea of adultery and challenging it by logic,
constitution and its role and effect on todays law and society. We aim to explain the concept of
adultery and its components as enshrined in IPC, analyzing objections raised against it,
scrutinizing apex courts stance and elaborating the arguments taken in such cases, seeing this
law through the lens of gender and finally challenging criminality and constitutionality of
adultery. Hence, our paper is divided into six parts. First part deals with adultery, its components
and rationale behind it. Second part discusses the arguments raised against this law in light of
gender issues and article 14, 15 and 16. We also understand the importance of these fundamental
rights to this law. Third part discusses the Supreme Courts stance on this law and arguments
raised by lawyers in these cases. Here, we elaborate the arguments raised by these lawyers and
explain them with a new viewpoint. Fourth part talks about various committees
recommendations and focuses on the question of gender neutrality in adultery. Fifth part talks
about the criminality of adultery and should it be de-criminalized due to private nature of the
offence. The dilemma we try to uncover is should adultery be a civil wrong or no wrong at all.
Concluding, we say that adultery is an outdated law and should be done away with in IPC. It
should be decriminalized and made only a civil wrong.

CHALLENGING ADULTERY AND ITS DIMENSIONS

I Adultery and its Rationale
Adultery in India is a criminal offence as per the Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC).
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason
to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such
sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five
years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor. *
First of all, let us understand the necessary components of adultery and then the rationale
behind it.

The essential ingredients of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

there must be sexual intercourse with the consent of the wife and the penetration must be
sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse necessary to the offence, 1
knowledge and reasonable belief that the woman is married to another man and that
marriage should be lawful and
the husband who has complained of the adultery had not consented or connived the act. 2\
wife cannot be punished as an abettor

In addition to this, section 198(1) and 198(2) provide that only the husband of the woman can
prosecute the other man for adultery. Two things can be clearly be seen from this. One, adultery
is violation of husbands right over his wife. Second, the womans consent is of no value to this
extra-marital relationship. This raises two interesting observations. Firstly, husband is aggrieved
by his violation of property right over his wife and hence consent of wife is not taken into
consideration. Secondly, is the aspect of interpreting sexuality of woman. This has two parts.
One, wife is seen as different category than a non-wife woman. Two, wife is seen as a victim of
seduction by man and not as an offender as the case should be. Lets understand these further.
First aspect of property rights has its deep roots dating back to Hebrew. It is not our wish to trace
the history and rationale behind this idea as its a topic of another big paper, but it is important to
understand this idea because this is an idea governing the institution of marriage. This is not only
provision fostering this idea, marital rape exception clause under sec. 375 of IPC is another law
that has its roots in this concept. A husband has exclusive right over her wifes body and if
anybody else lays his hands on her, he will be severely punished. The punishment of death
penalty given to man who commits adultery is a prime example of this.
Second, is sexuality of woman. Lets first understand the two categories of woman as perceived
by courts and society. First is the wife and second is non- wife. A wife is supposed to have
complete devotion to her husband and nobody else. Even if she has consensual sex with another
male, it is seen as an act of seduction by another man and hence punishable by law. Non-wife on
the other hand possesses an autonomy and independence which is not granted to the wife.
There is an agency which is acknowledged in the non-wife which is quite categorically denied to
the wife. She is her own person, and not the creation and concern of a guardian. 3 This agency
is freedom and her own identity as a person. It is continuously denied to the wife as she is only
seen as a shadow of husband and he is seen as her guardian. Although, the non-wife is given
much more freedom in her choices one thing is completely ignored by Indian criminal law both
1

See, Gour, 4 Penal Law of India at 4654-55 (cited in note 1); See also, Section 376, Explanation of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
2
See discussion, Gour, 4 Penal Law of India at 4656-61 (cited in note 1).
3
Usha ramanathan, Images(1920-1950) Reasonable man, Reasonable Woman and Reasonable Expectations at pp.
34Engendering Law: Essays in Honour of Lotika Sakar edited by Amita Dhanda and Archana Parashar. Lucknow:
Eastern Book Company, 34, Lalbagh, Lucknow- 1. 1999.

for wife and non-wife- feminine sexuality. Seeing section 375 and 497, we see that woman is
always a sufferer and never can be an offender/instigator. Priya Patil v. State of M.P. 4 case
elucidates this point where court refused to convict a woman under sec. 34 IPC (joint liability)
for rape as laws clearly point out that a woman cannot commit rape.These provisions look at
married women as victims, incapable of either expressing their sexuality or to
protect themselves against the lecherous behaviour of other scheming men. 5
So, the rationale behind adultery is clear and simple. Wife is property of husband and his rights
over her are to be protected. Along with this, she is seen as an innocent person who was seduced
by another man to engage in sexual intercourse and hence her consent is of no value. Now, lets
see what are Honourable Supreme Court on this issue. Obviously, they do not defend it on basis
of this concept of property but lets see how behind their nuanced arguments this idea is
always hidden.
II. SUPREME COURT STANDINGS
The first important discussion regarding the constitutional validity of the section was held
in the case of Yusuf Abdul Aziz v The State of Bombay and Husseinbhoy Laljee. 6 In this case,
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged to be ultra vires the Article 14 and 15 of
the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that Article 14 is general provision and should
be read keeping in mind the other provisions which sets out exceptions to fundamental rights.
Sex is a sound classification and Article 15 (3) provides for the exceptions to the women and
children. The petitioners argued that this clause is made only for the beneficial of the women and
not for giving license for committing or abetting crime. However, the Court held that they cannot
see any restrictions as such; nor they agree that the section tantamount to a licence to commit the
offence of which punishment has been prohibited. 7 The Court finally held that Article 14 and 15
when read together validate the impugned clause in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. 8
In the case of Sowmithri Vishnu v Union of India 9the Supreme Court held that the Section
497 is not violative of the Article 14 or Article 15 of the Indian Constitution on the grounds
that 10:
(1)

Section 497 confers upon the husband the right to prosecute the adulterer but, it
does not confer any right upon the wife to prosecute the woman with whom her husband

2006 CrLJ 3627

Gender Analysis of Indian Penal Code by Ved Kumari at pp. 150. In
Engendering Law: Essays in Honour of Lotika Sakar edited by Amita Dhanda
and Archana Parashar. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 34, Lalbagh, Lucknow
- 1. 1999.
6
AIR 1954 SC 321.
7
Id at 321.
8
Id at 321.
9
AIR 1985 SC 1618.
10
Id at 1620-162.
5

has committed adultery. The Supreme Court considered this to be a policy of law, and
while defining the offence of adultery if the offence is restricted to men is not violative of
any constitutional provision. 11
(2)
Section 497 does not confer any right on the wife to prosecute the husband who has
committed adultery with another woman. The Court said that the law is that the wife who
is involved in an extra-marital sexual relationship is not a author of a crime but is a
victim and the legislature considers it to be offence against the sanctity of a matrimonial
home, and the offence is generally considered to be committed by a man. The procedure
of law and the definition itself speaks for who have the right to prosecute whom. 12
(3)
Section 497 does not take in cases where the husband has sexual relations with an
unmarried woman, with the result that husbands have, as it were, a free licence under the
law to have extra-marital relationship with unmarried women. The Court said that the law
does not give freedom to men to have illicit relations with unmarried women, it only
made a specific kind of extra-marital relation as an offence which it considered to be
most seen and common. The husband can be booked under civil procedure by wife for
separation. It is for the law makers to reform the penal law as per modern times and it
doesnt offend Article 14 or 15 of the Constitution of India. 13
In the case of V. Revathi v Union of India 14 the constitutional validity of Section 198(1)
read with Section 198(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that it only allows the husband of
the adulteress to prosecute the adulterer but does not permit the wife of the adulterer to do so. 15
The court said that the law does not allow either of the spouses to prosecute each other
under criminal law; a husband is not permitted because the wife is not treated an offender in the
eye of law. The wife is not permitted as Section 198(1) read with Section 198(2) does not permit
her to do so. Moreover there is reverse discrimination in favour of women and there is no
discrimination against women so far as she is not allowed to prosecute her own husband. 16
III. CRITICISMS OF THE LAW AND SUPREMECOURT JUDGEMENTS
A. Violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
The Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with adultery is gender biased
mainly on the grounds that it does not allow the wife to prosecute the woman with whom her
husband has adultered though it allows the husband to prosecute the man who has adultery with
his wife. The law has considered woman to be a victim not as author of the crime. 17 This very
11

Id at 1620.
Id at 1621.
13
Vishnu, AIR 1985 SC at 1621.
14
AIR 1988 SC 835.
15
Id at 837.
16
Id at 838.
17
Vishnu, AIR 1985 SC at 1621.
12

notion of victimhood lies on the psychological belief of considering oneself helpless, lacking
power to overcome the situation and in a need of some external agency to take them out of the
situation. The State enhances the state of powerlessness and impotence which is central to the
ideology of victimhood through this kind of legislation.
The contention of the Honourable Court is that the community punishes the the 'outsider'
who breaks into the matrimonial home and occasions the violation of sanctity of the matrimonial
tie by developing an illicit relationship with one of the spouses subject to the rider that the erring
'man' alone can be punished and not the erring woman. It does not arm the two spouses to hit
each other with the weapon of criminal law. 18 However, the Court misses out the point that the
wife has no relief in Criminal law though the same provision is given to the husband, and in a
case where the woman is unmarried the woman cannot be prosecuted altogether. This can be
seen as a violation of natural justice which is fundamental to our Constitution. 19 Article 14 read
with 16(1) accords right to equality or an equal treatment consistent with the principles of natural
justice.
B. Section 497 does not come under the purview of Article 15 (3)
The framers of the Constitution believed that in the middle of the twentieth century no
one would discriminate on the ground of sex. 20 However, it is clearly seen that the legislature is
clearly making discrimination on the grounds of sex on the pretext of giving protective
discrimination to the women. The special treatment given to the women under clause 3 of
Article 15 should be restricted to such cases which must be related to some features or disability
which are so peculiar that it differentiate women from men as a class. 21
The equality clauses in the Indian Constitution were framed on the basis of the American
Constitution, so to ignore the background is like not only violating the basic norms of
comparative constitutional law but violating the basic principles of interpretation of the
constitution. 22 The American Supreme Court has stated that where both the sexes are on equal
footing and discriminations to a particular sex as a class would be like denying the equal
protection clause as enshrined in the constitution; - the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice
[is] forbidden by the Constitution. 23 Even any kind favour may it be positive or negative to the
women for administration convenience would be repealed or struck down as discriminatory
and unconstitutional. 24

18

AIR 1985 SC at 1618.

Subhash C. Kashyap, Constitutional Law of India at 481 (Universal Law 2008).
20
Constituent Assembly Debates. Vol. VII. at 650.
21
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India at 1796 (Wadhwa 8th ed 2007); See also, Srinivasan v.
Padmasini,AIR 1957 Mad 622
22
State of U.P. v Deoman, AIR 1960 SC 1125, 1131; See also Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India at
1796 (cited in note 27).
23
Reed v Reed,(1971) 404 US 76, 77.
24
Frontiero v Richardson,(1973) 411 US 677, 690.
19

The Court held that they cannot see any restrictions that the clause should be used to
measures which are strictly beneficial in nature. 25 However, if we take a note of what was the
intention of our Constitution framer behind keeping such clause as Article 15(3), the scenario
becomes clear. Prof. K.T. Shah believed that:
this discriminations is in favour of particular classes of our society which, owing to an
unfortunate legacy of the past, suffer from disabilities or handicaps. Those, I think may require
special treatment; and if they do require it, they should be permitted special facilities for some
time so that real equality of citizens may be established. It is only intended to safeguard,
protect or lead to their betterment in general; so that long-range interests of the country may not
suffer. 26
The intention of the Constitution Drafters are clear that they included this clause to
safeguard, protect or lead to the betterment of women in general; they have not intended to keep
it to give a licence for abetting or committing an offence. Even the Supreme Court did not agree
that the section tantamount to a licence to commit the offence of which punishment has been
prohibited. 27
The Court said that an argument like making both man and woman held liable for
adultery is not permissible as this is a policy of law. 28 An example put forward by the
Honourable Court that why the offence of robbery should be punishable with imprisonment for
ten years under Section 392 of the penal Code but the offence of adultery should be punishable
with a sentence of five years only : 'Breaking a matrimonial home is not less serious a crime than
breaking open a house'. 29 However, if we put the example in this way and check if it make
discrimination that Why the offence of robbery by a woman be not punished and the robbery by
a man is punished for 10 years. Can this be called a gender equal law as such, if breaking the
matrimonial home is considered to be a more heinous crime than robbery, why a woman cannot
be prosecuted for the offence? The question of policy of law does not apply here as the law is
discriminatory on the face without any valid, satisfactory reason for such laws.
The underlying law at the present situation, considers only men as offender, as a class;
the women are not physically or socially such situated that they are incapable of committing the
offence of adultery. Further, both the sexes are on an equal footing in committing the offence of
adultery, this kind of legislation are discriminatory and arbitrarily protecting the women. The
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code is nothing but violative of the equality clause under Indian
Constitution.
IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR LAW REFORMS
25

AIR 1954 SC at 322.

Constituent Assembly Debates. Vol VII at 655.
27
Abdul Aziz, AIR 1954 SC at 322.
28
Vishnu, AIR 1985 SC at 1620.
29
Id.
26

The Fifth Law Commission in its 42nd Law Reports suggested that Section 497 should not
be removed from the penal code, but it recommended that both the man and the wife should be
made guilty as there is no valid justification for not treating the guilty pair alike and also
scaled down the maximum punishment from five years to two years as the existing punishment is
unreal and not call for in any circumstances. 30 The recommended section is as follows:
Adultery If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is, and whom he knows or
has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that
man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, the man and the woman are
guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 31
The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill of 1978 provided for amendment of the section
497, however it was not passed by the legislature. Clause 199 of the draft bill provided for: 32
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is, and whom he or she knows, or has
reason to believe, to believe to be the wife or husband as the case may be, of another person,
such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, commits adultery, and shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or
with fine, or with both.
The draft bill differs from the suggestion of the 42nd Law Commission Report in two ways; the
draft provided for punishment of the adultator irrespective of the gender and has retained the
maximum punishment for the offence up to five years.
The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Justice V.S. Malimath
in the year 2003 suggested that the section 497 of Indian Penal Code should be amended as to
give effect that whosoever has sexual intercourse with the spouse of any other person is guilty
of adultery... 33 The Committee viewed that as the very objective of the section is to preserve the
sacred relationship of marriage, adultery is abhorred by the society so there is no justification
that the wife who has sexual relationship with a man is not treated equally. 34 This suggestion if
accepted would make a man and a woman be treated equal as an adultator.

30

Law Commission of India, Indian Penal Code Report number: 42 326-327 (1972) (IPC Rep hereinafter), online
at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report42.pdf (visited Sept 09, 2009).
31
Id.
32
Ki Vibhute, PSA Pillais Criminal Lawat 779 (LexisNexis Buttersworth Wadhwa 10th ed 2008).
33
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System 190 (2003)
(Criminal Justice hereinafter), online at
http://www.mumbaipolice.org/%5Carchives_report%5Cmalimath%20committee%20report.pdf
(visited Oct 5th, 2012)].
34
Id. at 90.

V. SHOULD ADULTERY BE DE-CRIMINALISED?

Should Adultery be De-Criminalized?
There are two points to be considered regarding this question. First and foremost, should adultery
be construed and treated as a criminal offence in its present form. Second, should it be a civil
wrong or just a consensual relationship between two individuals.
It needs to be understood that first question is discussed keeping in mind present legal status of
adultery and not what it should ideally be. In this, we discuss the question of adultery being a
civil wrong (if it is wrong at all). First part is, that it is a private matter between husband and the
other man and should be treated so. Indian Criminal Justice system treats crime as an act against
the society and not against any individual. Section 198(2) CrPC provides that only husband can
prosecute in case of adultery. This clearly proves that adultery is treated as a private affair by
criminal law itself. It goes against the whole idea of the criminal justice system. So, it should not
be treated as an criminal act and hence de-criminalized. It does not matter if we consider adultery
in its present form or in a gender neutral state as recommended by many committees because the
bottom line is it is a private affair and hence should only be dealt by civil laws and not
criminal
Second, true to Supreme Courts wordings in many cases marriage is a sacrosanct institution.
Hence, it should be protected with full vigour by legislature and judiciary. But criminalizing the
offence of adultery is not the answer to it as explained above. It not only goes against criminal
justice system of our country, it also tends to punish people for an act which is consensual in its
very nature. It should be covered under the definition of civil wrong as it is necessary to protect
the sacred and pristine bond known as marriage

In most part of the European Union, including England, Austria and Italy adultery is not
considered to be a criminal offence anymore. 35 The European Union (EU) has condemned death
penalty for adultery from time to time. 36 It had also criticised the Turkeys introduction of
punishment for adultery; it is a clear indication of the stand taken by EU of considering adultery
as a non-criminal offence. 37 In United States of America the law of adultery varies from one
State to another; however after the decision in Lawrence v. Texas 38 by U.S. Supreme Court the

35

See generally, Ruth A. Miller, The Limits Of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery, And Rape Legislation In
Comparative Perspective at 122-23 (Ashgate 2007).
36
See for example, European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2007 on human rights in Sudan, Official Journal 102
E, 24/04/2008 487 488 (European Parliament 2007), online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:52007IP0218:EN:HTML (visited Oct 14, 2012)
37
EU irked by Turkish adultery law, BBC News (Sept 09, 2004), online at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3641026.stm (visited Oct 14, 2012).
38
539 U.S. 558.

validity of adultery law is under debate. 39 Though, Islamic countries like Afghanistan, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arab, Iran have provisions for death penalty as the maximum
punishment for adultery but the concept is deeply rooted in the traditional, religious view of
Shariah. 40
In a survey made by the 42d Law Report Commission in 1972 on the question for the
repeal of the section 497, majority of the judges and lawyers wanted to retain the section and
only a minority want it to be repealed. 41 They also argued that India has not reached such a
situation to make a radical change in the law. However, they have also revealed that there are
only a few complaints related to criminal adultery, and only a few of them are sent for
imprisonment as most of the accused in cases has been let free only with a fine. 42
The United Nations Human Rights Commission has expressly mentioned that it is
undisputed that adult consensual sexual activity in private is covered by the concept of
privacy. 43 Also the Committee taking into notice the criminalization of some behaviours such as
those characterized as "debauchery" by some states asked that the states should refrain from
penalizing private sexual relations between consenting adults and to follow the Article 17 and
26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Liberty. 44 India being a party to this
covenant should think about decriminalizing adultery. The Amnesty International has also
expressly criticized and opposed those laws which criminalise sex between two consenting adults
in private place. 45
The National Women Commission, India wants that the rather than making provisions to
amend the laws to treat the women as criminal in the case of adultery they want that the section
to be repealed and treat the offence as a civil wrong rather than a criminal offence even the
Supreme Court of India has impliedly said that the man and woman should not strike each other
with the weapon of criminal law. 46 Even the 42nd Law Commission Report suggested that the

39

See, IPC Repat 325; See also, Christopher Scott Maravilla, Prosecuting Adultery under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice after Lawrence V. Texas.
40
Daniel Ottosson, Legal Survey On The Countries In The World Having Legal Prohibitions On Sexual Activities
Between Consenting Adults In Private (2006), online at http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/LGBcriminallawsDaniel_Ottoson.pdf (visited Oct 09, 2012)
41
IPC Rep at 326 (cited in note 30).
42
IPC Rep at 326 (cited in note 30).
43
Death by stoning/flogging, (Amnesty International 2006), online at
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE25/006/2006 (visited Oct 17, 2012).
44
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Egypt,(United Nations 2002), online at
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.CO.76.EGY.En?Opendocument (visited Oct 17, 2012 ).
45
Death by stoning/flogging (cited in note 43)
46
See, NCW rejects proposal to punish women for adultery, The Hindu, (Dec 26, 2006), online at
http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/26/stories/2006122603270900.htm (visited Oct 18, 2012 ); See also, V. Revathi v
Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 835.

main objective of the law is not to put a person under imprisonment, the court generally comes in
settlement with the offender in mercenary level. 47
The Supreme Court has already said that the philosophy behind this law is to that social
good is promoted that the husband and the wife is allowed to make up or break up the
matrimonial relation rather than prosecuting and dragging each other to the Criminal courts. 48
They can live together in the spirit of forgive and forget or get separated from each
other by approaching a civil court for divorce. 49 Moreover, the law is made for the betterment of
the children who can be saved from the trauma of seeing one of the parents being jailed. 50
Taking into consideration the development in other developed and progressive countries
and the suggestion from the committees and other place it is apt time to de-criminalise adultery
and make it a civil wrong.
VI. CONCLUSION
The article concludes that there has been a huge change in the Indian society; women are
no longer considered to be the chattel of her husband. The law as it stands today violates the
Indian Constitution that includes equal justice for every citizen of India and would not
discriminate on the grounds of sex. The special provision clause under Article 15 (3) for
women cannot be extended so as to create arbitrary discretion for such discrimination by the
legislature, as in the case of adultery. The section 497 of the IPC which deals with adultery needs
to be declared unconstitutional. Suggestions from the various Law Reform Committees also give
a hint that essentially this section should be amended, or should be repealed altogether. The
policy makers should immediately repeal the current law on adultery based on the suggestions
from the various committees to give just and equal justice to the citizens of India taking into
consideration the injustice rendered in the process. Further, in the present situation the marriage
is considered to be a civil contract between two consenting adults; the civil law gives a much
wider definition of adultery, and is sufficient and effective. Taking into consideration that
number of western and developed countries has decriminalized adultery or has made it a civil
wrong, there is a need to decriminalize adultery in India as well. Looking into all these
arguments, it is evident that adultery should not be a criminal offence. This change should be
done either through declaring it unconstitutional by the Constitutional courts of the country or
repealing the debated section through legislative amendments immediately. Along with it, a
gender neutral definition as provided in Indian Penal Code (amendment) Bill, 1978 51 should be
made into civil laws of marriage so that wife and husband are at the same level. Anyone, be it
wife or husband commits the offence of adultery should be charged as offender/abettor
47

IPC Rep at 325 (cited in note 30)

Revathi, AIR 1988 SC at 838.
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
Supra 32
48

depending on circumstances of case. Ending with a hope that we soon move to a law where men
and women are seen as two sexes by society. As Andy Warhol, an American Pop artist said,

They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.

Submitted By:
Pranav Sood

(20110181)

Abhijeet Singh (20110069)

Utsav

(20110237)