Joseph Shine v. Union of India

Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of  2017

Citation: (2019) 3 SCC 39, AIR 2018 SC 4898

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bence:  Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Judgment Passed on: 27 September 2018

Petitioner: Joseph shine

Respondent: Union of India

Introduction:

       ^[1]In 2018, the Indian legal system underwent a major transformation when the Supreme Court of India delivered its ruling in Joseph Shine v. Union of India. This historic decision struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which had made adultery a criminal offense for more than 158 years. The ruling not only dealt with questions of gender equality and personal freedom, but also raised important concerns about the role of the law in regulating private relationships, especially marriage.

This Summary will examine the facts, issues, and the importance of the Joseph Shine judgment within the broader context of Indian law, society, and the constitutional values it aimed to uphold.

Fact of the Case:

^[2]Joseph Shine, an Indian citizen and a hotelier by profession, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this petition, he challenged the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, along with Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973. These provisions dealt with the criminalization of adultery.

The petitioner contended that Section 497 IPC was inherently discriminatory and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. He argued that the provision treated men and women unequally, as it only penalised the man involved in an adulterous relationship while granting immunity to the woman, irrespective of her role in the act. Furthermore, only the husband of the woman involved in adultery could initiate criminal proceedings—excluding the wife of the adulterous man from having any legal recourse under the law.

Joseph Shine claimed that this unequal treatment was not only arbitrary but also reflected patriarchal notions that regarded women as the property of their husbands. He argued that such outdated legal norms undermined the autonomy, dignity, and equality of women in modern society. The petition was initially filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), aimed at eliminating gender bias in criminal law and securing constitutional protection for women’s rights.

In light of the serious constitutional questions raised, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution Bench comprising five judges to hear and adjudicate upon the matter.

Legal Issues Raised?

1. ^[3]Whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is constitutionally valid?
2. ^[4]Whether the provision fosters gender discrimination by treating women as subordinate to men in matters of personal relationships.
3. Should the woman of the offender be given a right to file a complaint for the act committed by her husband against the sanctity of their marriage?

Key Legal Provisions:

• ^[5]Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This provision criminalised adultery by penalising a man who had sexual intercourse with the wife of another man, without the husband’s consent or connivance. The section, however, did not make the woman an abettor to the crime, thus creating a significant gender disparity in its application.
• Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section provided that no court could take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XX of the IPC (which includes adultery) unless a complaint was filed by the husband of the woman involved. This provision effectively made the husband the sole aggrieved party in adultery cases.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The counsel for the petitioner pointed out several aspects of Section 497 that violate fundamental rights.
• He also highlighted the historical background of Section 497, stating that it was introduced during British colonial rule and is outdated, having no relevance in modern times.
• The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198(2) of the CrPC violate Article 14 of the Constitution because they criminalize adultery based solely on gender, without any reasonable or logical basis for such classification. He also pointed out that the law ignores the wife’s consent, which is another violation of Article 14.
• The petitioner claimed that Section 497 reflects an old-fashioned view of women as the property of their husbands, especially since the law says adultery is not a crime if the husband gives his consent.
• He further argued that the provision is discriminatory because it gives the right to prosecute only to men. If a woman’s husband has an affair, she cannot file a complaint, which clearly shows gender bias, violating Article 15 of the Constitution.
• The petitioner said this law violates women’s dignity, as it denies them sexual autonomy and freedom of choice, which is protected under Article 21. He added that consensual sexual relationships fall under the Right to Privacy, and forcing disclosure of such private matters is also a violation of Article 21.
• Under Section 497, the legality of the act depends entirely on the husband’s consent, treating women as objects. This shows how the law is both paternalistic and discriminatory.
• The counsel argued that Articles 14, 15, and 21 are clearly violated because of the law’s biased and arbitrary nature.
• He also contended that since adultery involves two consenting adults, it is unjust to punish only one party. If it is to be punished at all, both should be held equally responsible.
• Finally, the counsel claimed that every person, regardless of their gender or marital status, has the right to choose their sexual partners, including engaging in extramarital relationships, and the state should not interfere.^[6]

Respondent’s Arguments:

• On the other hand, the counsel for the Union of India defended the provision, arguing that adultery harms the institution of marriage and thus needs to be treated as a criminal offense to act as a deterrent.
• They stated that adultery has serious consequences for spouses, children, and society, and those who engage in such acts should be held accountable.
• According to the respondents, adultery is morally wrong in Indian society, and anyone who knowingly participates in it—especially an outsider interfering in a marriage—should be punished for damaging family values.
• They justified the law under Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which allows the state to make special laws for the protection of women and children. They claimed Section 497 is one such protective law.
• The respondents emphasized that adultery causes social harm and is considered morally offensive, so it should be punishable by law.
• They also argued that the Right to Privacy and Personal Liberty under Article 21 is not absolute. The state can restrict it reasonably in the interest of public welfare. Therefore, having a sexual relationship with a married person does not qualify as a protected private act.
• Furthermore, the respondents claimed that Section 497 actually favors women, as they are not punished under the law. This, according to them, is a kind of affirmative protection for women.
• They concluded that repealing Section 497 would weaken the institution of marriage, and keeping it in force acts as a safeguard against immoral behavior.^[7]

Judgment of the Case:

In the landmark judgment of Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Supreme Court unanimously declared Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unconstitutional, thereby decriminalizing adultery. The Court’s rationale was grounded in several key considerations:

1. Gender Stereotyping

The Court noted that the law was rooted in outdated patriarchal ideas, where women were treated as the property of their husbands. Since the law punished only men for adultery and gave women complete immunity, it reinforced the subordination of women and was based on gender stereotypes.

2. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

• ^[9]Article 14 – Right to Equality:
  The Supreme Court held that Section 497 violated the right to equality by treating women as subordinate to men within a marriage. The law allowed only the husband to initiate legal proceedings for adultery, thereby creating unequal rights between spouses.
• Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination:
  The provision was found to be discriminatory on the basis of gender, as it exempted women from punishment while holding only men criminally liable for adultery. This amounted to a clear violation of Article 15, which prohibits the State from discriminating solely on the grounds of sex.
• Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
  The Court ruled that Section 497 violated a woman’s fundamental rights under Article 21. It infringed her dignity, personal liberty, privacy, and sexual autonomy, which are essential components of the right to life under the Constitution.

3. Right to Privacy

Referring to the landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court stated that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. Since adultery involves a private, consensual relationship between adults, criminalising it was an intrusion into their personal liberty and autonomy.

4. State’s Role in Matrimonial Matters

The Court clarified that adultery is a private matter, and while it may be a valid ground for divorce, it does not deserve criminal punishment. Criminal law is meant to address acts that harm society at large, and adultery does not fall under this category. Therefore, civil law (like family law and divorce proceedings) is the appropriate avenue for addressing it.^[10]

Key Observation:

• ^[11]The Supreme Court of India in Joseph Shine v. Union of India declared Section 497 IPC, which criminalized adultery, as unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
• The law was based on gender stereotypes, treating women as property of their husbands.
• It punished only men, denying women equality, dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy.
• The Court held that constitutional morality and substantive equality must prevail, and that human sexuality is a core part of personal identity.
• The argument of “protective discrimination” for women was rejected as unconstitutional paternalism.
• Criminalising adultery was seen as the State’s unjust interference in private, matrimonial matters.

Conclusion:

The Joseph Shine v. Union of India judgment marked a significant turning point in Indian constitutional and criminal jurisprudence. By striking down Section 497 of the IPC and decriminalizing adultery, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles of gender equality, personal liberty, and individual dignity. The judgment recognised that criminal law should not intrude into the private lives of consenting adults and that outdated, patriarchal notions have no place in a modern constitutional framework.

The Court’s decision underscored the importance of constitutional morality over social morality, and reiterated that laws must evolve to reflect the changing values of society, especially in matters involving personal relationships and autonomy. Furthermore, by holding both Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC unconstitutional, the Court sent a strong message against gender-based legal discrimination and reinforced the equal status of women in marriage and society.

Ultimately, the ruling ensures that adultery remains a civil matter, appropriate for resolution within family law, rather than being subjected to criminal sanctions. This progressive judgment not only upholds the spirit of the Constitution, but also strengthens the legal and moral foundation of individual rights, equality, and justice in India.

[1] Law Bhoomi,Josheph Shine v Union of India ( Jun.25,2025 7.03PM ) https://www.lawbhoomi.com

[2] Lawful Legal, Case Comment: Josheph Shine vs Union of India (Jun.25,2025 7.40PM ) https://www.lawfullegal.in

[3] Drishti Judiciary, Joseph shine v. Union of India (Jun.25,2025 8.32PM ) https://www.drishtijudiciary.com

[4] Lawful Legal, Case Comment: Josheph Shine vs Union of India (Jun.25,2025 8.58PM ) https://www.lawfullegal.in

[5] Law Bhoomi,Josheph Shine v Union of India ( Jun.25,2025 9.15PM ) https://www.lawbhoomi.com

[6] Lawful Legal, Case Comment: Josheph Shine vs Union of India (Jun.26,2025 10.11Pm ) https://www.lawfullegal.in

[7] Lawful Legal, Case Comment: Josheph Shine vs Union of India (Jun.26,2025 10.26PM ) https://www.lawfullegal.in

[8] Law Bhoomi,Josheph Shine v Union of India ( Jun.27,2025 7.03PM ) https://www.lawbhoomi.com

[9] Dhyeya Law, Case: RECENT CASE 497 IPC( Jun.26,2025 9.30PM ) https://www.dhyeyalaw.in

[10] Law Bhoomi,Josheph Shine v Union of India ( Jun.27,2025 7.52PM ) https://www.lawbhoomi.com

[11] Drishti Judiciary, Joseph shine v. Union of India (Jun.27,2025 7.29PM ) https://www.drishtijudiciary.com