Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018)
Citation: (2019) 3 SCC 39
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dipak Misra CJ, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra
Facts
Joseph Shine, a non-resident Keralite, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalised adultery.
Under Section 497, a man who had sexual relations with a married woman without the consent or connivance of her husband was punishable with imprisonment. The woman was not treated as an offender or an abettor. The provision effectively considered the husband as the aggrieved party and treated the wife as his property.
The petitioner argued that the law was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Issues
- Whether Section 497 IPC violates Article 14 by being arbitrary and discriminatory.
- Whether the provision violates Article 15 by discriminating on the ground of sex.
- Whether criminalising adultery infringes the right to privacy, dignity, and autonomy under Article 21.
- Whether the provision undermines equality and agency of women.
Rules / Legal Principles
- Article 14 guarantees equality before law and prohibits arbitrary state action.
- Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.
- Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, including dignity, privacy, and decisional autonomy.
- Penal laws must have a legitimate state purpose and must not be based on outdated patriarchal notions.
Analysis / Application
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC, holding that it was rooted in patriarchal assumptions that treated women as passive subjects lacking sexual autonomy.
The Court found the provision manifestly arbitrary because it:
- punished only men and not women,
- allowed the husband’s consent to legalise adultery, and
- denied agency and individuality to married women.
The judges emphasised that marriage does not extinguish a woman’s autonomy over her body or choices. Criminal law, the Court held, cannot be used to enforce moral codes or protect a notion of marriage that treats women unequally.
While recognising that adultery may be a valid civil ground for divorce, the Court ruled that criminalisation was disproportionate and unjustified. Personal relationships between consenting adults fall within the protected zone of privacy.
Conclusion / Holding
The Supreme Court declared Section 497 IPC unconstitutional and struck it down in its entirety. It held that:
- The provision violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
- Adultery, though morally questionable, cannot be treated as a criminal offence.
- Women are equal partners in marriage, not property of their husbands.
Significance of the Judgment
- Marked a major step toward gender equality in criminal law.
- Reinforced the constitutional protection of privacy and individual autonomy.
- Rejected the use of criminal law to enforce social morality.
- Aligned Indian law with modern constitutional values and international human rights standards.