Joseph Shine v Union of India

The Indian legal landscape saw a historic shift in 2018 when the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict in Joseph Shine v. Union of India. This landmark judgement struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which had criminalised adultery for over 158 years. The case not only addressed issues of gender equality and personal autonomy but also questioned the role of law in regulating private relationships, particularly marriage.

In this article, we will explore the facts, issues, and the significance of the Joseph Shine judgement in the context of Indian law, society, and the constitutional principles that it sought to protect.

Introduction

Adultery, as a legal concept, had been criminalised under Section 497 of the IPC since its enactment in 1860. This provision made adultery an offence only for men who engaged in sexual intercourse with a married woman without the consent of her husband. The woman involved in the act of adultery was not punishable under this law, leading to significant gender inequality.

The Joseph Shine case questioned the constitutionality of this provision, with the petitioner, Joseph Shine, challenging the law as being discriminatory, archaic, and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

On September 27, 2018, the Supreme Court, in a historic judgement, declared Section 497 of the IPC unconstitutional. The Court also struck down Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which required the husband to file a complaint in cases of adultery.

This ruling decriminalised adultery, shifting it from the domain of criminal law to the realm of civil law, where it can now only be grounds for divorce.

Background of Joseph Shine v Union of India

The petitioner, Joseph Shine, was a hotelier residing outside India, who filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the IPC. The provision had been under scrutiny in several cases before, but the Supreme Court had upheld it in the past. Shine, however, raised significant questions regarding the gender bias inherent in the law and its violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and protection of personal liberty.

Shine’s case was inspired by a personal tragedy. A close friend of his in Kerala had committed suicide after being falsely accused of rape by a female co-worker. This incident, along with the discriminatory nature of Section 497, led Shine to challenge the law.

The Supreme Court, while hearing this case, realised the need to revisit and reassess the societal and legal relevance of such a law in modern India.

Key Legal Provisions

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This provision criminalised adultery by penalising a man who had sexual intercourse with the wife of another man, without the husband’s consent or connivance. The section, however, did not make the woman an abettor to the crime, thus creating a significant gender disparity in its application.

Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section provided that no court could take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XX of the IPC (which includes adultery) unless a complaint was filed by the husband of the woman involved. This provision effectively made the husband the sole aggrieved party in adultery cases.

Issues Raised in the Joseph Shine v. Union of India Case

The primary issue raised before the Supreme Court was the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the IPC. The petitioner contended that the section violated several constitutional provisions, including:

1. Article 14 (Right to Equality): The law discriminated on the basis of gender, as it did not allow a wife to file a complaint against her husband for adultery, whereas a husband had the legal right to take action against the man involved with his wife.
2. Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): The provision, by treating women as mere property of their husbands, perpetuated gender stereotypes and treated women unequally in the eyes of the law.
3. Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The law violated the right to dignity and sexual autonomy of women, as it denied them the agency to take legal action against their husbands for committing adultery.
4. Right to Privacy: The petitioner also raised concerns regarding the invasion of privacy in marital relationships, where the state, through criminal law, regulates a deeply personal issue.
5. Gender Neutrality in the Law: The petitioner argued that the law should be gender-neutral, treating both men and women equally when it comes to adultery.

Joseph Shine v Union of India Judgement

The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, observed that Section 497 of the IPC was manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Court’s observations can be summarised as follows:

1. Gender Stereotyping: The Court pointed out that the law was based on the outdated idea of patriarchy, where women were considered property of their husbands. By only criminalising adultery for men and not holding women accountable, the law perpetuated the subordination of women.
2. Violation of Sexual Autonomy and Dignity: The Court recognised that human sexuality is a critical part of an individual’s identity, and the law, by criminalising adultery, violated a woman’s sexual autonomy, her right to privacy, and her dignity within a matrimonial relationship.
3. Constitutional Morality and Substantive Equality: The judgement invoked the concept of constitutional morality, emphasising that equality should be ensured in all spheres of life, including marriage. The law was seen as paternalistic, offering “protective discrimination” to women, which the Court found to be a form of unjustified patriarchal control rather than a protective measure.
4. The Right to Privacy:  Referring to the landmark case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the right to privacy is fundamental and inviolable. Adultery, being a private matter between consenting adults, could not be criminalised as it intruded on the personal autonomy of individuals.
5. The State’s Role in Matrimonial Matters: The Court noted that adultery is a civil wrong, and it should not be treated as a criminal offence. The Court emphasised that criminal law is meant to address matters that affect the society at large, while adultery, being a personal issue, could be dealt with through civil remedies like divorce.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict, struck down Section 497 of the IPC as unconstitutional. The Court’s judgement in Joseph Shine v. Union of India overruled several earlier decisions that had upheld the law, stating that the provision was not in line with modern constitutional values.

The Court declared that adultery is no longer a criminal offence and should instead be treated as a civil wrong, primarily dealt with in the domain of family law as grounds for divorce.

In addition, the Court also struck down Section 198(2) of the CrPC, which restricted complaints of adultery to be filed only by the husband. This, the Court held, was a violation of substantive equality, as it allowed only the husband to be the aggrieved party.

Impact of the Judgement

The Joseph Shine judgement is a monumental step towards gender equality and the recognition of individual autonomy. By decriminalising adultery, the Court affirmed that:

1. Marriage is based on mutual respect, equality, and consent. It rejected the idea that a woman is the property of her husband.
2. The right to privacy is fundamental, and the state cannot intervene in personal relationships unless it is necessary for public interest.
3. Adultery should not be a matter for criminal law, but a civil issue that can be addressed through divorce proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) is a significant milestone in the ongoing struggle for gender equality in India. By striking down Section 497 of the IPC, the Court decriminalised adultery, affirming the principles of individual autonomy, gender equality, and privacy. The ruling represents a major step forward in ensuring that Indian law reflects the changing values of society, where the sanctity of marriage is grounded in mutual respect and consent rather than archaic notions of male ownership.

Researchers: Misbah Khan, a student at UPES, Dehradun and Aarushi Goswami, a student at NLU Delhi

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal