Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 S.C.C. 39 (India)

The Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court of India, is a landmark ruling that decriminalized adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The unanimous decision by a five-judge Constitution Bench was hailed as a victory for gender equality and individual freedoms. Below is a detailed breakdown of the judgment and the reasoning behind it.

FACTS

In December 2017, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the offense of adultery under Section 497 of the IPC, read with Section 198(2) of the CrPC. A three-judge bench, headed by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, referred the appeal to a five-judge Constitution Bench, acknowledging that the law appeared to be outdated.

Background:
Section 497 of the IPC criminalized adultery, stating that a man who had sexual relations with a married woman without her husband’s consent could be punished. However, the woman was not punishable and was treated as a victim. The petitioner, Joseph Shine, argued that the law discriminated based on gender, violated fundamental rights, and treated women as property.

ISSUES

1. Whether Section 497 of the IPC, read with Section 198(2) of the CrPC, violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India?

Key Issues:

– Violation of Fundamental Rights: The appeal argued that Section 497 violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Sex), and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
– Patriarchal Nature of the Law: The law was criticized as being based on patriarchal ideas, treating women as property of their husbands and denying them agency.

ARGUMENTS: PETITIONER

Key Contentions on the Petitioner’s Side:

1. Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality):
The petitioner argued that Section 497 violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, as it made an arbitrary distinction based on gender. Only the man involved in adultery could be punished, while the woman, even if a willing participant, was treated as a victim and was exempted from punishment. The law was biased, as it viewed the husband as the sole aggrieved party, while a wife had no similar recourse if her husband engaged in adultery.

2. Violation of Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Sex):
Section 497 was argued to be discriminatory based on sex, violating Article 15. The law depicted women as property of their husbands, denying them autonomy by criminalizing adultery only when a man had relations with a married woman without her husband’s consent. This law perpetuated gender stereotypes and patriarchal values.

3. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty):
Section 497 was argued to infringe upon the individual’s right to privacy, personal autonomy, and dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21. The petitioner contended that adultery, being a private matter between consenting adults, should not be subject to state intervention.

4. Patriarchal and Gender-Biased Law:
Section 497 was criticized as being rooted in the age-old belief that women were the property of men, especially their husbands. It permitted a husband to prosecute another man for adultery but denied the same right to a wife, reflecting a clear bias treating women as inferior.

5. No Justification for Criminalization of Adultery:
The petitioner argued that adultery, though a moral wrong, does not constitute a crime deserving of state punishment. Civil remedies, such as divorce or judicial separation, were more appropriate measures for addressing marital infidelity.

6. Arbitrary and Irrational Classification:
The petitioner pointed out that Section 497 was arbitrary in its classification of adultery and lacked a rational basis for the distinction it made between men and women. The law did not criminalize an extramarital relationship if the woman’s husband consented, further demonstrating that it sought to protect a husband’s rights over his wife.

7. International Precedents:
The petitioner cited examples from various countries that had decriminalized adultery, arguing that criminalizing adultery was inconsistent with modern values of personal freedom and gender equality.

ARGUMENTS: RESPONDENT

In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the respondent, representing the Union of India, defended the constitutionality of Section 497 and presented arguments supporting the criminalization of adultery.

Key Contentions on the Respondent’s Side:

1. Protection of Marital Institution:
Section 497 was argued to be aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriage, a key social institution in India. Criminalizing adultery was intended to deter individuals from engaging in extramarital affairs that could disrupt marital harmony.

2. No Discrimination Against Women:
The respondent argued that the law did not discriminate against women but rather protected them by exempting them from punishment. The exemption was in line with a protectionist approach, recognizing their vulnerability in a patriarchal society.

3. Adultery as a Crime Against Marriage, Not Individual Autonomy:
The respondent contended that adultery was not merely a private matter but a crime against the marital relationship itself.

4. Legitimate State Interest:
The respondent argued that the state had a legitimate interest in upholding morality and protecting the institution of marriage. Criminalizing adultery served to maintain social order and deter actions that could destabilize family life.

5. Reasonable Classification under Article 14:
The respondent maintained that the law was based on a reasonable classification, reflecting societal norms to protect women and maintain family integrity.

6. Morality and Public Interest:
Section 497 was justified as a law promoting public morality, reflecting societal ethical values.

7. Adultery as a Reasonable Offense:
The respondent argued that adultery caused significant harm to the aggrieved spouse and the family unit, making it reasonable for the state to consider it a criminal offense.

8. Comparison with Other Offenses:
The respondent noted that other personal offenses, such as defamation, were also criminalized, protecting individuals from personal harm.

9. Judicial Precedents:
Citing cases like Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954) and Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985), the respondent referenced past judgments upholding the validity of Section 497 to protect societal order.

JUDGMENT

Judgment of the Supreme Court:
The five-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra, delivered a unanimous verdict with four separate but concurring opinions.

Key Observations and Findings:

1. Violation of Article 14 – Right to Equality:
The court held that Section 497 was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to equality under Article 14. It reinforced gender inequality by assuming that women were incapable of making their own decisions in a relationship.

2. Violation of Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
The law infringed upon the right to privacy, dignity, and individual autonomy under Article 21. Justice Chandrachud highlighted that such intimate matters of personal choice should not be subject to criminal prosecution.

3. Patriarchal Notions:
The court criticized the law for being rooted in outdated, patriarchal notions that treated women as property of their husbands.

4. Adultery as a Ground for Divorce:
Although the court decriminalized adultery, it clarified that it could still serve as a valid ground for divorce under marital laws.

5. Marriage as an Institution of Trust and Mutual Respect:
The court emphasized that marriage is a partnership of equals based on trust and respect, and the state should not interfere in consensual adult relationships.

6. Global Perspective on Adultery Laws:
The judgment acknowledged the global trend of decriminalizing adultery, with many countries abolishing laws that criminalized consensual relationships between adults.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 497 of the IPC, declaring it unconstitutional. The court held that the law was outdated, discriminatory, and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. This judgment decriminalized adultery in India but affirmed that it could still be a ground for civil remedies like divorce. The *Joseph Shine* ruling stands as a milestone in reaffirming the principles of gender equality, personal autonomy, and privacy in the Indian legal system.