Introduction
Name of the Case: Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Citations: (2019) 3 SCC 39, AIR 2018 SC 4898
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided On: 27 September, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Rohinton Fali Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra
FACTS
The complainant, Joseph Shine, is an Indian hotelier who lives in Italy and is not a resident of Kerala in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India. A close friend of the petitioner in Kerala killed himself after a female coworker cruelly and falsely accused him of rape. According to reports, this prompted the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 32 contesting the constitutionality of Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), which stated that the husband of an adulterous accused person would be the only person considered to have been harmed by the commission of an offense under Section 497 or Section 498 of IPC.
The rights granted to all Indian citizens under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution are violated by these sections. He maintained that such provisions are gender biased, a hazardous weapon, and a violation of equity as we uphold equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with the Indian Supreme Court, Joseph Shine contested the legality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery.There were no decisions from lower courts in Joseph Shine v. Union of India because it was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Indian Supreme Court. Consequently, the matter proceeded directly to the highest court, which issued a ruling in 2018. In this case, the Supreme Court heard hearings and arguments at various points. Ultimately, the Supreme Court declared in September 2018 that Section 497 should be removed because it was unconstitutional.
The court’s decision signaled a significant change in Indian jurisprudence concerning marital equality and individual liberty.
Issue Raised
1.Is the Article 14 provision against adultery discriminatory and arbitrary?
2.Does the IPC’s Section 497 have constitutional validity or is it unconstitutional?
3.Whether the clause regarding adultery promotes the idea that women are men’s property and discriminates against women on the basis of gender under Article 15—which states that an act is no longer illegal if the husband has approved of it?
4.Does denying a woman her sexual autonomy and right to self-determination diminish her dignity?
5.Does criminalizing adultery constitute a legal intrusion into a person’s private life?
6. Should laws against adultery be gender-neutral? Should Section 497 be changed to include a legal provision stating that a woman can file a complaint against her husband for adultery?
7.Should the offender’s wife be granted the ability to protest about her husband’s violation of their marriage’s sanctity?
Contentions
FROM THE PETITIONER
1.Section 497 was passed during the British era and has no relevance at all in the present, according to the petitioner’s counsel, who also addressed a number of its provisions that seem to violate fundamental rights.
2.Additionally, the attorney claimed that Article 14 of the Constitution, which addressed equality before the law, was violated by Sections 497 and 198(2) of the CrPC.
3.The petitioner’s attorney argued that the section criminalizes adultery based solely on gender classification, which has no justifiable connection to the goal. Article 14 of the Constitution is violated because the wife’s permission is irrelevant.
4.The petitioner claimed that because the requirements were arbitrary and paternalistic, they violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. It was argued that neither party should be exempt from liability because sexual activity was a mutually beneficial and consenting conduct.
5.The Petitioner additionally argued that as choosing an intimate partner was a matter of personal autonomy about one’s sexuality, Section 497 of the IPC violated the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21. It was argued that any person, married or not, male or female, had the unrestricted right to have sex outside of their marriage.
6.It was maintained that while the law did not provide for action against women, it did provide for punishment for men who commit adultery. Because there was no legal provision to that effect, a woman was not allowed to submit a complaint against her husband for adultery under the Section.
7.Furthermore, he contended that because the conduct was “criminal” and dependent on the husband’s consent—or lack thereof—women were regarded like objects under this rule.
BY THE RESPONDENT
1.The respondents’ attorneys argued that deterrence should be in place to preserve the institution of marriage’s sanctity because adultery is a crime and having sex outside of marriage destroys family ties.
2.According to the respondents, adultery has an impact on the spouse, kids, and general morals of society. The attorney added that adultery is a morally repugnant crime to society and that those who commit it should all face consequences. The purity of marriage and family is destroyed by an outsider who commits this crime with full understanding.
3.Article 15(3), which gives the state the authority to enact special legislation for women and children, protects against the prejudice caused by the provision.
4.According to the respondent’s attorney, such an act should be punished and regarded as an offense since it would violate society’s morals and injure its members.
5.Additionally, the attorney argued that there were reasonable limitations when the public interest was involved and that the right to privacy and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was not an absolute right. An individual who engages in sexual activity with another married person outside of the boundaries of their marriage is not protected by the Right to Privacy clause.
6.The attorney also maintained that Section 497, which favored women, was a legitimate kind of affirmative action.
7.Since Section 497 is truly protecting society from such immoral behavior that would offend the institution of marriage, it shouldn’t be overturned.
8.The respondent’s attorney asked the court to keep the clause in place while removing the part that was deemed unlawful.
REASONING/ RATIO DECIDENDI
In this historic ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional, ruling that it violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court subsequently declared that, when compared to Section 497 of the IPC, Section 198(2) of the CrPC is likewise invalid.
The court ruled that while criminal penalties and other wrongs should be considered public, adultery cases are considered private. According to the right to dignity, a person should only be punished when absolutely required, and appropriate research and analysis should be done before imposing punishment. Furthermore, a woman should never be treated as a piece of property or a chattel.
DISSENTING OPINIONS
There were no dissenting opinions, it was a unanimous judgment.
JUDGEMENT/ DECISION
In Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India issued a unanimous ruling. There was no disagreement among the judges who heard the case. The ruling was delivered by a five-judge panel consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, and A.M. Khanwilkar. The judges’ decision to reject Section 497 of the IPC reflects their unified conclusion that the provision is unconstitutional.
His ruling centered on the importance of sexual autonomy under Article 21 as a value that is critical to life and individual liberty. His ruling made clear that women’s autonomy, dignity, privacy, and sexual freedom were all violated by Section 497.
The Bench went on to say that this Section violated the provisions of Article 15 and was unfair because it exclusively focused on one gender. The Court further asserted that Article 21 denied women the essential rights of sexual autonomy, liberty, dignity, and privacy guaranteed by the constitution
Conclusion
Proving that wives are not the property of the husbands and husbands are not their masters,” said Chief Justice of India Deepak Mishra at the outset of his decision. “The beauty of the Constitution is that it includes the I, me, and you,” said Chief Justice Dipak Mishra’s five-judge Supreme Court panel. A woman’s fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, which was established in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India, is violated by the definition of adultery, according to Justice Indu Malhotra.
Each judge contributed to the reasoning and conclusions of the decision, even though their views were articulated collectively rather than separately through concurring opinions. The justices’ unified approach demonstrated their consensus that the act is unconstitutional and that respecting equality and individual autonomy is essential when it comes to issues of rights and interpersonal relationships.
Shivangi Neemvanshi (S.S.Khanna Girls’ Degree College)