Joseph Shine vs Union of India: Landmark Judgement

In the 2018 case of Joseph Shine vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India decriminalised adultery Section 497 IPC unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision violated the fundamental rights to equality, privacy, and individual autonomy. This historic ruling marked a major shift in Indian legal and social perspectives, moving the treatment of adultery from a criminal offence to a civil issue, such as a ground for divorce. Explore other Landmark Judgements.

Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018) Introduction

The Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018) is a landmark case which significantly impacted gender equality in marriage and reshaped the legal perspectives on adultery and individual rights. In Joseph Shine v Union of India case, the Petitioner, Joseph Shine, who runs hotels in Italy was deeply affected when a close friend committed suicide after being falsely accused of rape. This tragedy influenced Joseph Shine to challenge adultery laws particularly Section 497 of IPC and Section 198(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. The 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar in its decision on 27th September, 2018 struck down 158 year old Section 497 IPC and held that the law was in violation of Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Download Joseph Shine vs Union of India 2018 PDF

The case at hand centres around a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by Joseph Shine of an Indian-origin hotelier living in Italy. The following are the brief facts of Joseph Shine vs Union of India case -

Joseph Shine vs Union of India Case Background

Joseph Shine was deeply affected by a suicide committed by his close friend from Kerala following a false accusation of rape by a female co-worker and influenced by this, he took a legal action. 

Challenge to Section 497 IPC & Section 198(2) Cr.P.C: A Case for Gender Justice

The Petitioner Joseph Shine challenged the constitutional validity of Adultery Section 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which criminalised adultery and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which restricted the right to file adultery complaints to the husband of the woman accused of adultery. The Petitioner contended these sections discriminated against men and treated women as subordinate to their husbands.

Articles 14, 15 and 21 Violations

Joseph Shine argued that these provisions violated Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Petitioner also contended that the provisions were gender-biased and infringed the principle of equality as they only allowed men to prosecute adultery cases and treated women as property.

Argument by the Petitioner Joseph Shine

Joseph Shine argued that the impugned provisions were based on archaic notions of gender roles, treated women as objects of male possession and failed to recognize the autonomy of women. He highlighted the need for a balanced, egalitarian approach to adultery which should not criminalise consensual relationships outside marriage.

Joseph Shine vs Union of India Issue addressed

The main question which was addressed in the case of Joseph Shine vs Union of India was whether Section 497 IPC r/w Section 198(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 violated Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

In the case of Joseph Shine vs Union of India Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code played a significant role. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Equality before Law

Article 14 deals with equality before law. It states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 15 of the Constitution of India: Prohibition of Discrimination

Article 15 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. No citizen shall on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-

1. access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment
2. the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Adultery: Section 497 of IPC

Section 497 defines Adultery. It states that 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 cases the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

Section 198(2) of CrPC: Prosecution for offences against Marriage

Section 198(2) (Now Section 219 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides that no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under Section 497 or Section 498 of the said Code (Now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023): Provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had taken care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his behalf.

Judgment and Impact of Joseph Shine vs Union of India

In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine vs Union of India case held Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. The 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar observed that the law was in violation of Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

Unconstitutionality of Section 497 IPC

The Supreme Court held that Section 497 of Indian Penal Code which criminalised adultery was discriminatory and outdated. It failed to treat men and women as equals instead assuming that a woman was the property of her husband. The decision struck down 158 year old Section 497 for infringing on the equality provided under Article 14 as well as the non-discrimination clause of Article 15.

Violation of Article 21 of Indian Constitution

The Court in Joseph Shine vs UOI highlighted that Section 497 IPC violated the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that the law restricted the autonomy of the women, dignity and sexual privacy. He drew parallels to Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India cases and argued that privacy and personal liberty were intrinsic to the dignity of the individual.

Adultery as a Civil Wrong

The Court in Joseph Shine case also clarified that adultery should not be considered a criminal offence but it could still be grounds for divorce under civil law. Justice Indu Malhotra stated that “The freedom to engage in consensual relationships should be protected from criminal sanction, as it fell within the personal sphere of individual liberty.”

Inequality in Legal Rights

The decision in the Joseph Shine vs Union of India case also highlighted the inherent bias in Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) Cr.P.C. which allowed only husbands to initiate adultery complaints and treating women as subordinates to men. The Supreme Court observed that this gender-specific approach was contrary to the constitutional guarantee of substantive equality.

Comments on Marriage and Privacy

The Supreme Court in Joseph Shine vs Union of India also noted that the marriage must be based on mutual respect, dignity and equality. Criminalising adultery was seen as an invasion of marital privacy and an infringement on personal liberty. Chief Justice Dipak Misra asserted that both partners in a marriage should have equal standing and autonomy and penalising consensual relationships undermined the sanctity of marriage by enforcing outdated moral standards.

Joseph Shine Case Impact

The Joseph Shine vs Union of India marked a significant advancement in promoting gender justice and safeguarding individual freedoms. The Supreme Court by striking down the criminalisation of adultery underscored that:

• Marriage must be grounded in mutual respect, equality and voluntary partnership, rejecting the notion of a wife as her husband's possession.
• The right to privacy is a fundamental right and state interference in intimate relationships is unjustified unless it serves a compelling public interest.
• Adultery is better addressed as a civil matter such as in divorce proceedings.

Conclusion

The Joseph Shine vs Union of India case changed the legal landscape regarding marriage and personal rights in India. The Supreme Court held that Section 497 IPC was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted that this law treated women as property of their husbands and infringed their rights to dignity and equality. The ruling bolstered that marriage should be based on mutual respect and equality. The Joseph Shine ruling serves as a milestone in advancing gender equality in marriage and reinforced that personal freedom and autonomy should be the foundation of marital relationships.