JOSEPH SHINE V. UNION OF INDIA (2019) 3 SCC 39

BENCH: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra

FACTS:

In the present case, the complainant, Joseph Shine, is a hotelier of Indian origin and a non- resident of Kerala residing in Italy. In Kerala, a close friend of the petitioner committed suicide after a female co-worker falsely/ maliciously accused him of rape. This is said to have triggered the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the constitutionality of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which dealt with the criminal offence of adultery and Section 198(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) which provided that no person other than the husband of a person accused of adultery would be deemed to be aggrieved by the commission of an offence under Section 497 or Section 498 of the IPC. These sections are in infringement of the rights given to all Indian Citizens under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. He argued that since we believe in Equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, such sections are violative of equality, a dangerous weapon, and are gender biased. Joseph Shine challenged the validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which made adultery a crime, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) submitted to the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES:

The case raises several constitutional questions regarding the provision for adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It challenges whether this provision is arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14, questioning its constitutionality. Specifically, it asks whether Section 497 perpetuates the stereotype of women as property of men by treating adultery as an offence only if the husband has not consented, thus discriminating on the basis of gender under Article 15. The case further examines whether the provision compromises the dignity of women by denying them sexual autonomy and the right to self-determination. It questions if criminalizing adultery constitutes an intrusion by the law into the private realm of an individual. Additionally, the issue of whether adultery laws should be made gender-neutral is raised, considering that Section 497 does not allow a woman to file a complaint against her husband for committing adultery. Lastly, the case questions whether a woman whose husband has committed adultery should be granted the right to file a complaint to protect the sanctity of their marriage.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Judges unanimously agreed that Section 497 of the IPC was unconstitutional, leading to its invalidation. In this landmark ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down Section 497, declaring it unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held Section 198(2) of the CrPC unconstitutional insofar as it applied to Section 497 of the IPC. This landmark decision overturned several previous judgments that had criminalized adultery.

The Supreme Court emphasized that criminal sanctions are intended for public wrongs, while adultery, being a private matter, does not warrant criminal punishment. The Court highlighted the importance of the right to dignity, asserting that penalties should only be imposed when absolutely necessary and after thorough analysis and inquiry. It further stressed that no one should regard a woman as property or chattel, reinforcing the principle of gender equality. In its judgment, the Court rightly recognized that laws such as Section 497 of the IPC are outdated, discriminatory, and incompatible with contemporary values. Consequently, the provision was declared unconstitutional. The Court underscored that criminalizing adultery was neither justifiable nor reflective of a modern, progressive society. Following this landmark ruling, adultery is no longer a criminal offense but remains a valid ground for seeking divorce. Individuals engaging in extramarital relationships cannot be punished under criminal law, marking a significant shift in the legal approach toward personal relationships and upholding individual autonomy and equality.

ANALYSIS:

The Joseph Shine judgment emphasized the importance of personal dignity, equality, and fundamental rights. By striking down Section 497 of the IPC, the Supreme Court recognized that adultery, while morally contentious, is a private matter that does not warrant criminal punishment. The decision upheld Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, condemning the law’s discriminatory and patriarchal nature, which treated women as subordinate to men. The Court affirmed that laws must evolve to reflect modern values and protect individual autonomy, ensuring that personal liberties and dignity are prioritized over outdated moral standards. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights and equality.