Case Law: Joseph Shine VS. Union of India

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India made headlines with its landmark judgment in the Joseph Shine vs. Union of India case, which fundamentally altered the legal landscape concerning adultery in India. Prior to this ruling, Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalized adultery, but the law was gender-biased, holding only men accountable for the act. Under this provision, a man engaging in a sexual relationship with a married woman was liable, while the woman was not held responsible. This legal framework perpetuated the notion of women being considered property of their husbands, undermining their personal rights and autonomy.

Overview of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India Case

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introduced during British rule in the 1860s, criminalized adultery. According to this law, if a man had a sexual relationship with a married woman without her husband's consent, he could be punished. This law only held men accountable, treating women as their husband’s property rather than acknowledging their individual rights.

Over the years, many people criticized this law as unfair to women. Despite these concerns, earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985) and V. Revathi v. Union of India (1988), upheld the law.

In 2017, Joseph Shine challenged Section 497, arguing that it was unconstitutional and discriminatory. He claimed the law violated women's dignity and gender equality. Key issues raised included:

• Gender Discrimination (Under Article 15): The law was seen as biased against women.
• Right to Equality (Under Article 14): The law was viewed as violating the principle of equality.
• Privacy and Liberty (Under Article 21): The law intruded into personal relationships, infringing on privacy and liberty.

On September 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of India agreed with Shine’s arguments. The Court declared that Section 497 was outdated and deemed adultery a personal matter, not a criminal one. This landmark decision marked a significant step towards gender equality and the protection of individual rights in India.

Background of the Case

In 2017, Joseph Shine, a non-resident Indian, challenged the constitutionality of Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He argued that these laws infringed on fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 21 (privacy and personal liberty). Shine claimed that these laws were outdated, diminished women's dignity, and treated them unfairly. Initially, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra reviewed the case. It was later referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench for a more thorough examination.

A notable incident related to the case involved a friend of the petitioner in Kerala, who committed suicide after a female colleague falsely accused him of rape. This tragic event highlighted issues related to how sexuality is treated and the excessive control and favoritism towards men under the existing laws.

What Are The Ingredients For Adultery?

To prove adultery, the following must be shown:

• A married man must have had sex with a woman he thinks is married to another man.
• The woman must have agreed to the sex.
• The sexual relationship must have occurred without the consent of the woman's husband.
• All the people involved must be married.

Contentions

By the Petitioner:

• Violation of Equality (Article 14): The petitioner argued that Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198(2) of the CrPC violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates equality before the law. The law punishes only men for adultery, without considering whether the act was consensual. This, the petitioner argued, is inherently unfair and discriminatory.
• Outdated Law: The petitioner’s lawyer highlighted that Section 497 was enacted during British rule and is therefore outdated. The law no longer reflects contemporary societal values and norms.
• Objectification of Women: The petitioner contended that the law treats women as property, only accountable if their husbands approve of the affair. This objectification violates women’s rights and dignity.
• Gender Discrimination (Article 15): The petitioner argued that Section 497 discriminates based on gender, as women cannot file complaints against their husbands for adultery. This contravenes Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender.
• Responsibility and Accountability: If adultery is considered a crime, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that both parties involved should be held accountable, not just the man.
• Right to Privacy (Article 21): The petitioner argued that the law infringes on individual privacy and personal freedom, protected under Article 21. Adultery, being a personal matter, should not be criminalized as it interferes with personal choices.

By the Respondent:

• Protection of Marriage: The respondent's lawyer argued that adultery harms marriages and families, and laws are necessary to protect the institution of marriage.
• Limits to Privacy (Article 21): The respondent contended that while Article 21 guarantees privacy and personal liberty, these rights have limits when public interest is at stake. Adultery, being a violation of marital vows, falls under this category and should be addressed by law.
• Societal Impact: The respondent’s lawyer argued that adultery is morally and socially detrimental. It harms not only the individuals involved but also affects society’s moral fabric. Therefore, it should remain a criminal offense to safeguard societal values.
• Special Measures (Article 15(3)): The respondent argued that the discrimination inherent in Section 497 is permissible under Article 15(3), which allows special laws to protect women and children.
• Preservation of Law: The respondent requested the court to remove only the unconstitutional aspects of the law while retaining the remainder.

Some Previous Judgments

1. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954): The court decided that Section 496 of the IPC was valid, as it was a special rule for women allowed by Article 15(3) of the Constitution. It was considered acceptable to have gender-based classification in this context.
2. Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India & Anr. (1985): The court upheld Section 497, ruling that changing the law was a matter for lawmakers, not the courts.
3. V. Revathi v. Union of India (1988): The court confirmed that Section 497 was constitutional, designed to protect marriage institutions, and was viewed as reverse discrimination in favor of women.
4. W. Kalyani v. State through Inspector of Police and another (2012): The court emphasized that Section 497 meant women could not be charged with adultery, reinforcing the idea that the law was gender-biased.

Issues Raised In Joseph Shine vs. Union of India Case

• Is Section 497 of the IPC unconstitutional?
• Is the law unfair because it only punishes men for adultery and not women?
• Should a woman be allowed to file a complaint if her husband commits adultery?
• Does the law hurt a woman's dignity by not respecting her rights and choices regarding adultery?
• Does this law make a woman seem like property, with gender-based discrimination and a husband’s consent making adultery not a crime?
• Is Section 497 of the IPC from 1860 legally valid?

Overview of the Judgment

The Joseph Shine vs. Union of India case marked a significant turning point in Indian legal history. The Supreme Court declared Section 497 of the IPC unconstitutional, stating that the outdated law violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Section 198(2) of the CrPC, as it applied to Section 497, was also deemed unconstitutional.

Key Observations:

• Outdated Law: The Court observed that Section 497 was outdated and failed to reflect contemporary values regarding women's rights. The requirement for a husband’s consent in matters of adultery was deemed a violation of women's sexual autonomy and privacy.
• Violation of Constitutional Rights: The judgment highlighted that Section 497 infringed upon the principle of equality (Article 14) by targeting only one gender, violated Article 15 by focusing solely on men, and breached Article 21 by interfering with individual rights and privacy.
• Criminalization of Adultery: The Court noted that while adultery could serve as grounds for divorce, it should not be treated as a criminal offense. Adultery was recognized as a personal issue rather than a crime against society.
• Privacy of Relationships: Justices D. Mishra and A.M. Khanwilkar emphasized that treating adultery as a criminal offense invaded the privacy of personal relationships, distinguishing it from other matrimonial issues like dowry demands or domestic violence.

Recommendations

• 42nd Law Commission Report: Suggested that women involved in adultery should also be punished, and the penalty for adultery should be reduced to 2 years. This recommendation has not yet been implemented.
• 152nd Law Commission Report: Proposed making adultery law equal for both men and women, reflecting changes in society regarding women's status. This suggestion was not accepted.
• Malimath Committee (2003): Recommended changing the law to state that "Anyone who has sexual relations with someone else's spouse should be guilty of adultery." This suggestion is still under consideration.

Conclusion

Adultery was decriminalized on September 27, 2018, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Joseph Shine vs. Union of India. While no longer a criminal offense, it remains a valid ground for divorce. The Supreme Court’s decision has reshaped the legal perspective on adultery in India by affirming the importance of gender equality, personal autonomy, and privacy. For more detailed information on the adultery law in India, you can refer to our Article. However, it is essential for the legal framework to continue evolving in response to societal changes and the need for a just legal system.