Joseph Shine V. Union of India (2018)

Case Name: Joseph Shine V. Union of India (2018)

Citation: 2018 SC 1676

Court Name: Supreme Court of India

Bench Type: Constitution bench

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

Date of Judgement: 27 September 2018

Parties Involved:

Joseph Shine………………………………………………………………………..Petitioner

Union Of India………………………………………………………………….Respondent

Facts of the Case:

Section 497 of the IPC criminalizes adultery, which seems to be an offence only committed by men and allows the husband to prosecute against the man who was involved in the relationship with his wife, but not vice versa. In this provision, women are always treated as passive objects by their husbands. Section 198(2) of the CrPC limits the right to file a complaint only to the husband, which denies women the opportunity to seek a legal remedy. 

There was a man in Kerala who committed suicide who was falsely alleged by a female co-worker for having raped her. This female co-worker is a married woman and alleged the man having illicit sexual relationship with her.  The man was charged under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing Adultery. After which he has committed suicide.

This man’s friend, Joseph Shine, who was not an Indian, filed a writ petition in 2018 and challenged the constitutionality of section 497 of IPC  and 198(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) in the court by filing the writ petition.

Issues Raised:

• Whether Section 497 of IPC is constitutionally valid?
• Whether Section 198(2) of CrPC is constitutionally valid?

Arguments by the Petitioner:

He argued that section 497 of IPC violates the Fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution such as right to equality, non- discrimination and personal liberty (i.e. Article 14,15 & 21)

He contended in the court that these provision are discriminative against men and held responsible only to men but not women even though she is an abettor. Women are excused from all the legal consequences.

Additionally, he also said that these provisions always promoted the gender stereotypes, treats wife  as husband property and this type of objectification infringe the women’s autonomy and dignity.

Arguments by Respondent:

He said that Section 497 of IPC is Constitutional. This provision was made to protect the family and sanctity of marriage. Due to this reason, it had been followed for a long time.

This provision treats men and women differently because, due to this setup of extramarital affairs, it safeguards a man and woman from the breakdown of marriage.

Judgment:

Before also in this case led by  Chief Justice Dipak Mishra , held that Section 497 of IPC and !98(2) CrPC  has striked off by saying that they are unconstitutional. These provisions violates Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution. 

Supreme Court of India also upheld in this case that gender equality is the fundamental constitutional principle and any provision which perpetuates stereotypes and discrimination on the basis of gender is inherently flaw.

Legal reasoning :

The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC (adultery) and the connected part of Section 198(2) CrPC because:

1. Violation of Article 14 (Equality): The law treated women as the property of husbands and exempted them from liability, creating an arbitrary and gender-biased classification.
2. Violation of Article 15 (Non-discrimination): The “protection” given to women was based on stereotypes, not genuine protection, and thus discriminatory on the ground of sex.
3. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life & Privacy): Criminalizing adultery intruded into the privacy, dignity, and sexual autonomy of individuals, especially women.
4. No legitimate state interest: Protecting the sanctity of marriage cannot justify criminalizing private consensual acts when civil remedies (like divorce) are available.
5. Constitutional morality over public morality: Patriarchal notions cannot override equality, dignity, and autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution.

Hence, Section 497 IPC and related CrPC provision were held unconstitutional.

Significance

This case is significant because it has abolished the patriarchal notion that women are the property of their men. Additionally it also reaffirms the autonomy of women in her marriage. After decriminalizing adultery men and women are held equally responsible for all of their actions. Court affirms that in personal relation gender equality is an unquestioned principle.

This judgement also confirms the woman’s equal sexual autonomy  and affirms  their right to make choices regarding their personal relationship. It emphasizes that women should not be treated as passive victims but as individuals capable of making their own decisions and they held responsible for their own actions thereby discarding the outdated notion of female victimhood.

This judgement reflected a shift towards a progressive understanding of marriage acknowledging that a relationship is built on trust, respect and equality between partners. This ruling challenges the legislature  to critically evaluate the existing legal framework and rectify any provision that undermine the principle of equality, autonomy and dignity.

Conclusion

This case marked a significant milestone in the journey towards gender equality and progressive legal reforms in India and striking down Section 497 of IPC and 198(2) of CrPC. The Supreme Court of India affirms the principle of equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty. 

The judgment recognizes women as equal partners within the institution of marriage and upholds their autonomy. This case will continue to inspire future legal reform efforts  serving as a begin of hope for a more inclusive and  egalitarian India.