Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018)

Learning Outcomes:

1. Recognize the Supreme Court’s rationale for striking down Section 497 of the IPC.
2. Understand the constitutional violations and gender biases in the previous adultery law.
3. Examine the arguments presented by both petitioner and respondent in the case.
4. Analyze the judgment’s impact on individual liberty and gender equality.

Background and Context

The Joseph Shine vs Union of India case was a turning point in Indian legal history, resulting in the decriminalization of adultery. Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalized adultery solely as an offense committed by a man with a married woman, without the consent of her husband. This section allowed only the husband to prosecute the offender, thus excluding women from any legal agency in such matters.

Previous Legal Context: Section 497 of the IPC, introduced in 1860, stated:

• Section 497: Any man who has sexual intercourse with the wife of another man, without the husband’s consent, would be guilty of adultery, punishable by imprisonment up to five years or with a fine. The law exempted women from punishment as abettors.
• Section 198(2) of the CrPC: Only the aggrieved husband could file a complaint under Section 497 or Section 498 of the IPC, reinforcing male authority over women’s sexuality.

The case was first challenged in 1954 and again in Sowmithri Vishnu vs Union of India and Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay, where the Supreme Court upheld its constitutional validity.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Joseph Shine, an hotelier, filed the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging Sections 497 of the IPC and 198(2) of the CrPC on the following grounds:

1. Arbitrariness: Section 497 was manifestly arbitrary and violated the constitutional guarantee of substantive equality.
2. Gender Discrimination: The law denied equality to women, placing the husband and wife on unequal footing.
3. Legislative Inconsistency: While adultery concerned marriage, it did not penalize sexual relations between a married man and a single woman, revealing its bias.
4. Agency and Autonomy: The law deprived women of their agency, autonomy, and dignity, based on a patriarchal notion that marriage renders a woman voiceless.
5. Property-Based View: The section was grounded on an outdated view of women as property, reinforcing gender stereotypes.
6. Violation of Privacy: Section 497 violated Article 21 by infringing on an individual’s sexual autonomy, which includes the choice of an intimate partner.

Respondent’s Contentions

The Union of India defended the provision with these arguments:

1. Family Integrity: Adultery threatens the family unit, the fundamental building block of society, and thus must remain criminal.
2. Moral Outrage: Adultery outrages societal morality, warranting punishment.
3. Wider Impact: It affects not just two people but has an impact on the spouse, children, and society at large.
4. Violence: It constitutes an invasion by an outsider on the sanctity of the family.
5. Affirmative Action: Section 497 was seen as affirmative action, protecting women as allowed under Article 15(3).
6. Protection of Rights: The sanctity of family life and the right to marriage are fundamental rights encompassed in Article 21.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 as unconstitutional. Key observations and rulings included:

1. Exemption of Women: The exemption under Section 497 was based on a paternalistic view, which considered women as needing protection and incapable of making free choices in sexual relationships. The court held that such discrimination entrenched patriarchal norms and was not protected by Article 15(3).
2. Arbitrariness and Gender Bias: The section was found to rest on the preservation of sexual exclusivity of a married woman for her husband’s benefit, thereby violating the non-discrimination principle of Article 15.
3. Denial of Substantive Equality: Section 497 reinforced the notion of women being unequal participants in marriage, incapable of freely consenting to sexual acts, thus violating Article 14.
4. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The section denied dignity, liberty, privacy, and sexual autonomy protected under Article 21. The court ruled that it was a breach of individual liberty and gender parity.
5. CrPC Section 198(2): This section, allowing only husbands to file complaints, was also declared unconstitutional to the extent it applied to adultery under Section 497.

Important Note: The court emphasized that protection laws should not place women in a metaphorical “cage,” reinforcing stereotypes and discriminative notions.

Comparative Overview: Arguments and Judgment

Broader Implications

The judgment marked a shift towards individual liberty and gender equality, overriding previous rulings like Sowmithri Vishnu vs Union of India. The Supreme Court reiterated its role in upholding constitutional morality over archaic norms, as stated by Chief Justice Dipak Misra: “It is time to say that the husband is not the master of a wife.”

Important Note: The ruling does not equate to moral approval of adultery but signifies that such behavior should not be a criminal offense, focusing instead on personal liberty and privacy.

MCQ

Which of the following was a key reason for the Supreme Court to strike down Section 497 of the IPC?

1. It violated the right to free speech under Article 19.
2. It imposed moral standards on unmarried individuals.
3. It denied substantive equality, reinforcing gender stereotypes.
4. It affected the sanctity of religious beliefs.

Correct Answer: 3. It denied substantive equality, reinforcing gender stereotypes.