Joseph Shine vs Union of India on 27 September, 2018

CASE SUMMARY

Joseph Shine vs Union of India on 27 September 2018[1]

In the Supreme Court of India

INTRODUCTION:

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Adultery laws in India. In the past few years, section 497 of the IPC has been challenged before the honorable Supreme Court regarding its constitutional validity where the court upheld the validity of this section before 2019. The Supreme Court in the Joseph Shine vs Union of India struck down the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the IPC stating it is gender biased and infringement on the fundamental rights of women. It has been Struck down after 158 years of its long-establishing history in the Indian legal system. Adultery is although a legal act now it is still morally and socially considered as a sin and crime by the Indian society as it diminishes the married status and matrimonial ties of the spouses.  The institution of marriage in India especially among the Hindu majority community is a sacred bond. It is based on the trust between the spouses i.e. husband and wife. Therefore, the honorable Supreme Court denied intervention in the personal space of the spouses but it is a valid and good ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Currently, Adultery is just a civil wrong and now a criminal wrong.

There are several times before the court the constitutional validity and legality of the Section 497 of IPC was challenged which is read with section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1972. It was first challenged in the Yusuf Abdul Aziz Vs. State of Bombay, 1954 in which the grounds of challenge were that it infringes articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court held that Article 15(3) of the constitution empowers the government to make special provisions for women and children so if Section 497 prohibits the wife from being prosecuted as an abettor, then this ground is justifiable under Article 15(3) and hence section 497 constitutionally valid and it doesn’t violate the fundamental rights[2]. Under Soumitri Vishnu Vs. Union of India the question put before the court was the constitutional validity of section 497 again but with 3 other questions i.e. the husband can prosecute the men who have committed adultery with the wife but the wife cannot prosecute the woman with whom her husband has committed adultery, the wife cannot prosecute the husband for adultery with other women, it gives free license to husband to have extra-marital relation with unmarried women. The court held that the offense of adultery can be committed by the men only and not by the wife because a man seduces a woman but women do not seduce men hence men are the authors of adultery and women are the victims of it. The court further said that a person who breaks the matrimonial home of someone should be punished because the law deals with the extra-marital relation and declares it as a criminal offense.[3]

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Joseph Shine challenged the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The Main purpose of the case was to bring the men in the ambit of section 497 of IPC and make them also liable for the crime of Adultery by providing the right to sue the husband for Adultery to the wives.
3. The other reason was to check the Gender biased approach of this section.
4. The traditional approach in which section 497 was drafted, is no longer applicable in the society as it is male patriotic and male authoritative.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT:

1. Whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is Constitutionally Valid?
2. Is Section 497 gender neutral as it punishes men only and not women in case of commission of Adultery?
3. Can the right to file a complaint under Section 497 of the IPC against the husband be made available to the wife?
4. If the husband gives his consent for an act of sexual intercourse with the wife, then it is no crime but if the wife does so without the husband’s consent, then it falls under the ambit of adultery. Can the Objectification of women under this section be declared Unconstitutional?

ARGUMENTS:

1. Petitioner: The petitioner explained that Section 497 violates certain fundamental rights which are Articles 14, 15, and 21. The Section is discriminatory because the husband can only file a complaint of adultery and the wife does not and it gives the husband the authority over the wife, denying women the right to sexual autonomy and is arbitrary because it only punishes the man and because the intercourse is consensual, both should be held responsible. The petition also argued that the clause violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, as the choice of an intimate partner clearly falls within the realm of sexual autonomy. It also mentions that engaging in a sexual relationship outside of marriage is an individual choice.
2. Respondent: The respondents contended that infidelity is a wrongdoing that harms family ties and that discouragement is essential to defend the institution of marriage. The right to security is not supreme and is subject to a few legitimate impediments and it shouldn’t be utilized as a pardon to do corrupt acts in the title of privacy. Additionally, Article 21 does not ensure that an individual who locks in in extramarital sex with a hitched individual is entitled to security protection. According to the respondents, infidelity has an effect on the companion, kids, and society at expansive. It is a wrongdoing for a pariah to abuse the holiness of marriage knowing it will do so. Article 15(3), which gives states the specialist to sanction uncommon laws for ladies and children, avoids the provision’s discrimination. Section 497 is serving as a defense for society against this shameless conduct that irritates the institution of marriage. Hence, it shouldn’t be overruled. They encouraged the court to take off the arrangement alone and strike out as if it were the risky portion that was ruled illegal.

JUDGEMENT:

The test that was utilized to decide whether a classification was plainly subjective is unimportant nowadays since ladies have their claim personalities and can compete successfully with men in all circles of life. This clause clearly damages Article 14. The Court ruled that women are protected from abettor discipline by Section 497. It expressed that this arrangement, which is secured by Article 15, is great for young ladies (3). In arrange to ensure ladies against patriarchy and free them from oppression, Article 15(3) was included. In arrange to present them to men, this content was composed but Section 497 is based on patriarchy and paternalism or maybe being a shape of defensive separation. The arrangement damages Article 15(1) of the structure since it advances the generalization that women’s sexual independence ought to be controlled and is based on the premise of sexual orientation. Beneath Article 21 of the structure, sexual and individual security are regarded in their respect. A woman’s right to protection amplifies to young ladies as well. A person’s independence is their capacity to make choices with respect to vital issues in life. The crucial right to nobility and correspondence ensured by Article 21 is damaged by the authorization of constrained commitment through the limitation of sexual independence. The offense is based on the thought that ladies are a husband’s property and that infidelity is seen to be a burglary of his property since it states that the husband’s assertion or complicity would not constitute an offense. It was famous that Section 497 shields ladies from discipline for supporting and abetting. It expressed that young ladies will benefit from this arrangement, which is ensured by Article 15. (3). In arrange to ensure ladies against patriarchy and free them from abuse, Article 15(3) was included. This content was composed to offer assistance to them discover competent men but Section 497 is based on patriarchy and paternalism or maybe being a shape of defensive separation. A young lady is entitled to protection like any other individual. A private’s independence is their capacity to make imperative life choices. Infidelity was a criminal offense beneath the Indian Correctional Code until it was nullified by the Preeminent Court of India on 27 September 2018. Adultery is no longer a recognized crime in India under section 497 of IPC as it’s unconstitutional however, it can be a valid ground for divorce.

CONCLUSION:

The court rendered a seminal legal precedent by deeming the aforementioned statute as unconstitutional. Presently, principles of liberalism and egalitarianism have become predominant globally. There is a pressing need for legislative amendments aimed at abolishing laws exhibiting gender discrimination. Adultery not only undermines the dignity of women but also perpetuates gender disparities. Historically entrenched within a framework of patriarchy and paternalism, it was codified as a punishable offense. While there exists, a faction dissenting against this law citing discriminatory grounds, its presence in the Indian legal framework served as a deterrent against extramarital affairs, thus safeguarding the institution of marriage. Marriage, being of paramount importance, warrants utmost protection. Furthermore, in scrutinizing the principle of equality in this context, the principle of equity should be invoked. Equity, distinct from equality, embodies notions of fairness and justice, acknowledging inherent disparities and necessitating corrective measures to rectify imbalances. Discriminatory implications are circumvented by Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution, empowering states to enact legislation safeguarding the rights of women and children. However, invalidating the law indirectly exposes marriage to heightened vulnerabilities. In conclusion, requisite adjustments must be made to mitigate the heightened risks ensuing from the court’s ruling, ensuring the preservation of the institution of marriage.

Reference(s):

[1] Joseph Shine vs Union of India, AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4898, 2019 (3) SCC 39.

[2] Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs The State of Bombay Andhusseinbhoy … on 10 March 1954: 1954 AIR 321, 1954 SCR 930

[3] Smt. Sowmithri Vishnu vs Union of India & Anr on 27 May 1985: 1985 AIR 1618, 1985 SCR SUPL. (1) 741