Joseph Shine V. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39

Introduction

Joseph Shine V. Union of India, every law student has heard about this landmark judgment passed by Honorable Supreme Court which decriminalized Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which talked about adultery. Section 497 said that if a man has any kind of sexual relationship with a married woman, her husband can file a suit against him for the offence of adultery. This section gave the right to the husbands to treat their wives a property that they can own as it did not give any right to women to file case against their husbands in similar matters. Prior to this case also, there were many times when it was discussed that this section is a clear violation of Article 14(right to equality) of the Indian Constitution. Other cased related to this matter also came in front of the courts, but this section was finally struck down after this landmark judgment. By doing this Honorable Supreme Court truly stepped toward a constitution’s reformation journey and proved how they are completely against the idea of patriarchy. This was a very necessary step taken in the year 2018 towards gender justice and equality keeping the core principles of the Indian Constitution intact. This judgment condemns the idea of the Indian societies that women are subordinate to men in any way.

Court- Supreme Court of India

Constitutional Bench

The unanimous decision was made by a five judges’ bench consisting of Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice Khanwilkar, Justice Nariman, Justice Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra.

Facts and Background

• Petitioner, Joseph Shine was a person of Indian origin, from Kerala to be specific. He then was a resident of Italy and filed a writ petition under Article 32 for the violation of his fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
• A friend of the petitioner killed himself after he was falsely accused of rape by his female co -worker. 
• This incident resulted in creating a trigger point for him to file the petition for striking down Section 497 as it violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
• Indian society has always been a patriarchal and it was believed that women do not know what is right or wrong for them so their consent was never valuable. Marriage was considered to be a great deal and they had to be saved at any cost in the Indian society. Section 497 was also an example of such mindset as it was just added so that marriages could have been saved by considering wife as a husband’s property. But today, times have changed and how such provision still existed was a question in itself.  When this case came in front of the court, the petitioner in his petition not only questioned the constitutional validity of section 497 but he also raised a very important concern about the dignity and individuality of women and also gender neutrality.
• Prior to 2018, when this petition was filed, many such cases were filed such as Yusuf Abdul Aziz V. State of Bombay (1954) and Sowmithri Vishnu V. Union of India and Anr (1985) and they all also challenged section 497 as violation of Constitution of India but the courts upheld this section after hearing their arguments. Discussions were held to make this section gender neutral, giving equal right to women to accuse their husbands of adultery but no decision was made yet, before this judgment struck down this provision.

Issues of this case

• Whether section 497 of the Indian Penal Code constitutes to the clear violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether according to section 497, IPC women are portrayed as a property of their husbands?
• Should women be given equal rights in provisions related to adultery or should section 497 be completely struck down?

Contentions by the petitioner

• Counsel from the petitioner’s side argued that in case of adultery, the consent of women was given no relevance.  Husbands were given the right to file a direct complaint against the person his wife had physical relationship with without consulting with the wife, her consent was given no relevance, treating them as objects. This was completely irrelevant as it should not account to a criminal offence when the wife had given consent for physical relationship and it should not account for an offence against her husband as well.
• Petitioner argued that this section was a clear violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution as it was completely arbitrary, made no sense  and gender bias. Also considering it was added in the British era and today things are very different.
• One of the important argument that was made by the petitioner side was very person has the right to choose who they want to have sexual relationship with under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which talks about right to life and personal liberty and section 497 was a clear violation of this article.
• They further argued that women were not given any such right to file a complaint against their husbands in case they committed adultery under this provision. This harmed the dignity of women and was a clear example of how men always considered women their subordinate.

Contentions by the respondent

• Arguments by the respondent were mostly moral based, rather than stating facts, they were pointing out morals. Firstly, they argued that this section protects the institution of marriage and preserves relationship in a marriage.
• Arguing about Article 21, respondent stated that Right to life and personal liberty is not an absolute right and imposing few reasonable restrictions in some instances are important and this was a similar matter.
• The respondent argued that having an affair outside of marriage is morally wrong and by striking down this section, the court would outrage the modesty of many. So, the unconstitutional parts of the provisions should be removed but the provision should be kept intact.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

Honorable Supreme Court of India with a five judges’ bench passed a unanimous decision of striking down section 497 of the Indian Penal Code according to which adultery was a crime .All five judges agreed with the fact after considering all the arguments that this section portrayed a woman as a property of her husband which she definitely is not and hence it was a clear violation and clash of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Bench further added that they agreed with the fact that having sexual relationship with any person is the choice of any individual as mentioned in the case of Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India. Also in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India women were given an equal position in marriage and this section violated that.

So, considering all the above facts the bench decided to decriminalize section 497 of the Indian Penal Code but stated that it can be used as a ground for divorce in civil matters.

Ratio Decidendi

Honorable Supreme Court overruled all the previous judgments that were in any way in favor of adultery such as Yusuf Abdul Aziz V. State of Bombay. The court added that adultery to be considered as a civil wrong not a criminal one as ultimately it is the choice of person who he or she wants to have physical relationship with.

Court states that this rule was patriarchal and was based on outdated norms and believes that should not be followed today. Court also added that section 198(2) is also unconstitutional to an extent if it is applied with section 497 as they both are the clear violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 if the Indian Constitution.

Analysis and conclusion

Section 497 was solely based on a patriarchal thinking that the Indian society has in the British era about how women are not able to make their own decisions. This judgement has proven to a reformative one and gave women back their dignity and respect also their right to be treated as equals.

By linking this case with important precedents like K.S. Puttaswamy and Navtej Singh Johar the Judges gave a rationale to their decision portraying that the modern India and our judicial systems uphold and stand by the principles of gender equality and individual privacy and freedom.

This case also established women as equals in the institution of marriage supporting individuality, privacy and the importance of consent\

Reference(S):

1. Goyal, Anushka, Case Comment: Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, Lawctopus Academike (Aug. 14, 2024), https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-comment-joseph-shine-vs-union-of-india/ (last visited Jan. 23, 2026).
2. Shweta & Tauseef Ahmad, Joseph Shine v. Union of India – A Comment, 14 Nat’l L. Sch. J. 1, Art. 18 (2018), https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsj/vol14/iss1/18
3. Privacy Law Libr., Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), Privacy Law Library, https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/joseph-shine-vs-union-of-india
4. Diganth Raj Sehgal, Joseph Shine v. Union of India: Case Analysis, IPleaders (Jan. 1, 2024), https://blog.ipleaders.in/case-analysis-joseph-shine-v-union-india/