Detailed Case Commentary of Joseph Shrine v. Union of India [2018] 11SCR770

Parties Involved:

Petitioner: Joseph Shrine, Indian origin, non-resident of Kerala residing in Italy

Respondent: Union of India

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1981) 1 SCC 436

Facts of the Case

In this case Joseph Shrine, a hotelier of Indian origin and non- resident of Kerala, residing in Italy has filed a writ petition under article 32 challenging the constitutionality of section 497 of IPC which dealt with criminal offences of adultery, and section 198(2) of CrPC which provided that no person other than the husband would be deemed to be aggregated by the commission of an offence under section 498 or section 487 of IPC what triggered the petitioner is a close friend of him committed suicide after a female co-worker falsely accused him of rape. The petitioner focused on the issues that the above mentioned provisions are against the rights mentioned in article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian constitution.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issues addressed by the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether section 497 of IPC is constitutional or unconstitutional?
2. Whether Adultery is discriminatory under article 14?
3. Whether Adultery encourages this stereotype that women are the property of men, and discriminates on gender basis under article 15?
4. Whether criminalising Adultery is an illusion into the private realm of individual?
5. Should the women be given right to complaint against her husband for the acts committed by him against the sanctity of their marriage?
6. Whether the laws made were gender neutral or not?

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

The Counsel for the petitioner discussed several aspects of Section 497 that tended to violate fundamental right and stated that the law was enacted during the British era and has no relevance whatsoever in modern times.

The counsel also asserted that Section 497 and Section 498(2) of the CrPC were against Article 14 of the Constitution which talked about equality before the law. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the provision criminalises adultery on the basis of classification based on gender alone, which has no rational nexus to object being achieved. The consent of the wife is immaterial; thus, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Petitioner argued that the provisions were violative of fundamental rights granted under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, due to their paternalistic and arbitrary nature. It was submitted that sexual intercourse was a reciprocal and consensual act for both the parties; neither should be excluded from liability. The Petitioner further contended that Section 497 of the IPC was violative of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, since the choice of an intimate partner fell squarely within the area of autonomy over a person’s sexuality. It was submitted that each individual had an unfettered right (whether married or not; whether man or woman) to engage in sexual intercourse outside his or her marital relationship.

2. Discriminatory:

It was argued that the law provided for a man’s punishment in case of adultery whereas no action against a woman was provided for. Under the Section, a woman was not permitted to file a complaint against her husband for adultery due to the lack of any legal provision to such effect.

Further, he argued that women were treated like objects under this law as the act was ‘criminal’ on the husband’s consent or lack thereof.

3. Shine argued for the unconstitutionality of Section 497 of, stating that it was arbitrary, disproportionate, and in violation of contemporary constitutional principles of equality and personal liberty. His legal stance was a significant step in addressing gender biases in Indian law.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The respondents’ counsel argued that adultery is an offence and that engaging in sexual relationship outside of marriage undermines family bonds, necessitating deterrence to safeguard the sanctity of marriage as an institution.
2. The respondent’s asserted that adultery negatively impacts the spouse, children and societal morality. The counsel emphasized that adultery is morally repugnant to society and that those committing such acts should face knowledge, which disrupts the sanctity of marriage and family.
3. The counsel contended that the discrimination present in the provision is justified under Article 15(3), which grants the state the right to enact special laws for the protection of women and children.
4. The respondents’ counsel further argued that such conduct violates societal morality and causes harm to its members, warranting its punishment as an offence.
5. The counsel also maintained that the Right to Privacy and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not absolute, with reasonable restrictions applicable when public interest is involved. The Right to Privacy, they claimed, does not shield individuals who engage in sexual relations with someone else’s spouse outside of marriage.
6. The counsel argued that Section 497 was a valid law, serving as a form of affirmative action that benefits women.
7. They also contended that Section 497 serves as a safeguard for society preventing immoral activities that threatened the institution of marriage, and therefore, it should not be struck down.
8. The respondents’ counsel requested that only the unconstitutional aspects of the provision be removed, while the overall section be preserved.

Law

The legal principles associated with this case are as under:

Legal Principles

The Court’s decision was based on several key legal principles:

Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution

The Supreme Court declared that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was in violation of these constitutional provisions.

Gender stereotypes

The court observed that Section 497 was rooted in gender stereotypes, treating women as the property of their husbands.

Sexual Autonomy

It was held that Section 497 infringed on a woman’s sexual autonomy, as well as her dignity and privacy.

Substantive Equality

The court also struck down Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ruling it unconstitutional as it designated the husband as the only aggrieved party in offenses under Section 497.

Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

The ruling emphasized that Section 497’s treatment of women as their husband’s property was a violation of their dignity and individuality.

Sexual Privacy

The court reaffirmed that sexual privacy is a natural right protected under constitution.

Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review administrative actions to ensure they are within the bounds of the law.

Contempt the Court: The importance of upholding the authority and dignity of the judiciary, ensuring that administrative actions do not undermine judicial processes.

Natural Justice: Ensuring that administrative decisions are made fairly, with a fair hearing and without bias.

Administrative Discretion: The limits of discretion that administrative authorities have and the need to exercise it reasonably and within legal bounds.

Analysis

Constitutional validity of Section 497 of IPC and Section 198 of CrPC

1. Section 497 of IPC forces gender stereotypes by demanding sexual fidelity from women, limiting their sexual autonomy and portraying them as incapable of exercising sexual freedom offering “protection” from prosecution.
2. It restricts a woman’s sexual autonomy by tying it to her spouse’s consent, reinforcing patriarchal norms.

• Section 497 shapes societal perceptions of women’s sexual agency, reinforcing a patriarchal structure that controls women’s sexuality in the guise of protecting marital sanctity.

1. In a constitutional framework aimed at eliminating gender stereotypes and promoting equality, Section 497 entrenches discrimination and has no place in modern law.
2. Article 15(3) allows protective discrimination but cannot be used to perpetuate paternalistic notions of protection, which only serve to cage women. Articles 14-18 work together to ensure equality and non-discrimination, and Section 497’s gender bias cannot be shielded under Article 15(3).
3. Exempting women from prosecution under Section 497 implies a lack of sexual agency, granting them protection on the assumption that they were “seduced” rather than acting with autonomy.

• The “protection” under Section 497 reflects the deprivation of women’s agency. Article 15(3) is designed to promote substantive equality, which includes dignity and autonomy- values that Section 497 undermines.
• Section 497 violates women’s dignity, autonomy, and privacy, subverting equality by imposing a gender-biased view of marriage that disadvantages women.

1. Criminal law should align with constitutional morality. Section 497 promotes a marriage construct that forces women to surrender their sexual autonomy, violating their constitutional right to liberty, dignity, and equality.
2. Section 198 of CrPC is discriminatory, as it only allows husbands to file complaints, making it constitutionally invalid.

Should Adultery be a Criminal Offence?

1. Adultery differs from offenses like cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC or domestic violence, which serve distinct purpose in matrimonial law. Treating adultery as a crime intrudes into private matters.
2. Even if equality in filing a complaint is granted to wives, adultery remains an inherently private issue.

• Adultery is unlike dowry demands or domestic violence; it does not warrant criminal punishment

1. Criminalising adultery intrudes on matrimonial privacy and is better left as a ground for divorce.
2. Making adultery a crime would violate Article 21’s protections for dignity and privacy for both spouses. Unlike cruelty or dowry demands, adultery involves a third party and thus intrudes on the private sphere.

Judgement

The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC, declaring it unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 15 and 21. It held that the law undermined a woman’s autonomy, dignity and privacy by treating her as subordinate to husband. The court emphasized that adultery was a personal matter, not a crime against society, and should remain a civil wrong rather than a criminal offence.  Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra highlighted that criminalising adultery violated privacy and sexual autonomy, fundamental to dignity and liberty under Article 21, and reinforced patriarchal norms that had no place in constitutional law.

Conclusion

The 2018 case of *Joseph Shrine v. Union of India* stands as a landmarks judgement in India’s legal history. By decriminalising adultery, the Supreme Court declared Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code unconstitutional, overturning a 164-year-old law that had long been criticised for its archaic, patriarchal, and discriminatory nature towards women.

This ruling holds immense significance in advancing gender equality and civil liberties in India, Justice Chandrachud, in his leading opinion, condemned the adultery law for treating women as “chattel” and reinforcing the “patriarchal notion of women as the property of men.” By striking down the law, the Court upheld the constitutional values of dignity, privacy, and equality for all citizens, regardless of gender.

The judgement also sets the stage for further reforms in India’s legal system to promote gender neutrality. Many civil and criminal laws still embody outdated views on gender roles and morality. The principle articulated in *Joseph Shrine*, such as privacy, autonomy, and non-discrimination, can serve as a foundation for challenging similar laws on constitutional grounds.

Looking ahead, India must continue along the progressive path paved by the judgements like *Joseph Shrine* to build a more just and equitable society. While the repeal of Section 497 is a major milestone, much remains to be done to achieve true gender equality under the law.