Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – A Landmark Judgment on Adultery Laws in India

Introduction

The case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, which struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, decriminalizing adultery. The verdict reinforced the principles of gender equality, personal liberty, and the right to privacy.

Background of the Case

Facts of the Case

Joseph Shine, a non-resident Keralite, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. These provisions criminalized adultery and punished only the male perpetrator while treating the woman as a victim.

Section 497 IPC – Adultery Law Before the Judgment

• Adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with a married woman without the consent of her husband.
• The woman involved was not punishable, as she was considered a victim.
• The husband of the woman could file a case against the man, but the wife of the accused man had no such right.

Legal Issues

1. Whether Section 497 IPC violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) by treating men and women unequally?
2. Whether the law violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by infringing on personal choices and autonomy?
3. Whether adultery should remain a criminal offense in a modern society?

Arguments

Arguments by the Petitioner (Joseph Shine)

• Violation of Gender Equality: The law discriminated against men and deprived women of their agency.
• Violation of Privacy and Autonomy: The State should not interfere in private matters of consenting adults.
• Arbitrariness of the Law: The provision favored husbands and treated women as their property.

Arguments by the State (Union of India)

• The State defended Section 497 IPC, arguing that adultery destroys the sanctity of marriage.
• It was necessary to uphold social morality and family structure.
• Removing criminality would promote immorality in society.

Judgment

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC. The key observations were:

1. Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality):
   • The law was based on gender stereotypes and treated women as property of their husbands.
   • It denied women equal rights by allowing only husbands to prosecute adulterers.
2. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty):
   • Personal relationships and choices in marriage fall within the right to privacy.
   • The Court held that criminal law cannot regulate personal morality.
3. Adultery Is a Civil Matter, Not a Criminal Offense:
   • The Court ruled that adultery could be a ground for divorce, but not a crime punishable by imprisonment.

Key Opinions by Judges

• CJI Dipak Misra: Marriage does not mean the extinguishment of individual identity.
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud: Criminalizing adultery violates women’s dignity and autonomy.
• Justice Indu Malhotra: The law perpetuated patriarchal notions and was discriminatory.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Promoted Gender Equality:
   • The judgment upheld women’s autonomy and rejected archaic laws based on patriarchal assumptions.
2. Reinforced the Right to Privacy:
   • The decision strengthened individual liberty and the right to make personal choices.
3. Decriminalization of Personal Conduct:
   • The ruling recognized that adultery, while morally debated, should not be a crime.
4. Set a Precedent for Progressive Laws:
   • The verdict influenced discussions on marital rape and personal freedoms in India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) was a historic milestone in India’s legal and constitutional landscape. By decriminalizing adultery, the Court emphasized gender justice, personal liberty, and privacy, ensuring that criminal law is not used to enforce moral codes in private relationships. This ruling marks a step forward in progressive legal reform and gender equality in India.