Joseph Shine vs. Union of India

Date of Judgment: September 27, 2018

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

Introduction: The Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgment in Joseph Shine vs. Union of India on September 27, 2018, decriminalized adultery, declaring Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unconstitutional. This decision marked a significant shift in the legal landscape concerning personal relationships and gender equality in India.

Facts of the Case: Joseph Shine, a non-resident Keralite, filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 IPC, 1862 and Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Section 497 IPC criminalized adultery by imposing culpability on a man who engages in sexual intercourse with another man's wife, punishable with up to five years of imprisonment. Importantly, women were exempt from prosecution, and the section did not apply when a married man had relations with an unmarried woman. Section 198(2) CrPC stipulated that only the husband could file a complaint for adultery.

Issues:

1. Whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes adultery, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

2. Whether the provision fosters gender discrimination by treating women as subordinate to men in matters of personal relationships.

Observations:

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict, held that Section 497 IPC was unconstitutional. The Court observed that the provision was based on outdated notions of patriarchy, treating women as property and denying them autonomy. It emphasized that the law violated the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty.

Rationale of the Court in Joseph Shine vs. Union of India Judgment:

In the landmark judgment of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court unanimously declared Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unconstitutional, thereby decriminalizing adultery. The Court's rationale was grounded in several key considerations:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

o Article 14 (Right to Equality): The Court observed that Section 497 discriminated against women by treating them as subordinate to men within the institution of marriage as only the husband had the choice to initiate adultery prosecution.

o Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): The provision was found to be violative of Article 15, as it perpetuated gender-based discrimination by exempting women from prosecution while holding men accountable for the same act.

o Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The Court held that Section 497 infringed upon a woman's right to dignity, liberty, privacy, and sexual autonomy, thereby violating her fundamental rights under Article 21.

2. Gender Equality and Autonomy:

o The Court emphasized that the law treated women as property, denying them autonomy and dignity. It highlighted that the provision was based on outdated patriarchal notions, which have no place in a modern constitutional democracy.

3. Right to Privacy:

o The Court reaffirmed that sexual privacy is a natural right under the Constitution. It noted that the State cannot intrude into the private realm of marriage by criminalizing consensual acts between adults.

4. Overruling Precedents:

o The Court overruled its previous judgments in Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. State of Bombay (1954), Sowmithri Vishnu vs. Union of India (1985), and Vishnu Revathi vs. Union of India (1988), which had upheld the constitutionality of Section 497. It concluded that these decisions were based on outdated and patriarchal views, which are inconsistent with the constitutional principles of equality and individual autonomy.

Implications:

• Adultery is no longer a criminal offense under Indian law. However, it remains a ground for civil remedies, such as divorce.

• The judgment reinforces the principle of gender equality, affirming that both men and women have equal rights and autonomy within marriage.

• The decision upholds individual autonomy and dignity, recognizing the right of individuals to make personal choices without undue interference.