File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Overview of the Joseph Shine v. Union of India Case: A Comprehensive Examination

Adultery cannot and should not be a crime.
This quote succinctly captures the essence of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Section 497 IPC in the Joseph Shine

The case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a significant milestone in the legal history of India. It questioned the legality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This case represented a notable deviation from conventional understandings of adultery legislation and had extensive consequences for gender parity, individual self-governance, and the protection of personal privacy in India.

Historical Background of Adultery Legislation in India
Section 497 IPC: Section 497 IPC, established in 1860 during the British colonial era, made adultery a criminal offense. The statement declares that engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who is married to someone else, without the agreement or knowledge of that person's spouse, and when the act does not meet the criteria for rape, is considered the crime of adultery. The stipulated penalty entailed a maximum of five years of incarceration, a monetary fine, or a combination of both.

Section 198(2): of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) outlines the procedure for prosecuting offenses under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The right to submit a complaint for adultery was restricted exclusively to the spouse of the woman implicated. The section stipulated that only the woman's husband would be recognized as having the authority to bring charges against the perpetrator.

Evidentiary Basis for the Lawsuit
Joseph Shine, a Kerala native and Indian entrepreneur, submitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to the Supreme Court of India, questioning the legality of Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC. Shine contended that these regulations infringed upon basic rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, such as the rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination based on sex (Article 15), and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).

Legal Concerns Raised
Infringement of the Principle of Equal Treatment:
Shine argued that Section 497 IPC exhibited gender discrimination by assuming that only men may be guilty in cases of adultery. The provision failed to acknowledge women as potential perpetrators of the violation, therefore reinforcing the notion that women are subordinate to their husbands and upholding gender stereotypes.

Individual's Right to Privacy and Personal Liberty:
Shine contended that the act of making adultery a criminal offense violated the fundamental rights of persons to privacy and personal freedom inside their intimate relationships. He stressed the importance of granting individuals the liberty to participate in consensual relationships without the threat of legal action, as long as it does not cause harm to others or impact public morality.

Effects on Gender Equality:
The case prompted substantial inquiries over gender parity within conjugal partnerships. Shine pointed out that Section 497 IPC perpetuated patriarchal ideals by absolving women of any consequences for committing adultery and laying the entire responsibility on the man involved. This reinforced preconceived notions about women's faithfulness and purity, diminishing their independence and ability to make decisions about their personal lives.

Legal Proceedings and Ruling by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India considered arguments from both parties and discussed the constitutional legality of Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on September 27, 2018, declared Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC as invalid, with unanimous agreement. The court determined that these regulations infringed upon the constitutional right to equality as stipulated in Article 14. The statement highlighted that adultery should only be considered a criminal violation if it resulted in harm to someone else or had an impact on public morality.

Key Rulings and Observations:
The court acknowledged that Section 497 IPC saw women as passive entities rather than equal participants in a marriage, therefore depriving them of their ability to act independently and make decisions. The ruling emphasized the significance of gender parity and individual agency in marriage unions, harmonizing with present-day societal norms that prioritize individual liberties and entitlements.The court's decision to decriminalize adultery upheld the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and personal liberty in India.

Influence on Society and Culture
Altering Social Norms: The Joseph Shine case ignited debates and discussions over the alteration of social norms and views towards marital relationships in India. It questioned conventional ideas about marriage and faithfulness, promoting more modern understandings of intimate relationships centered on mutual respect, equality, and consent.

Legal Precedent: The verdict in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India established a crucial legal precedent by confirming the rights of individuals in marriages and relationships. It had a significant impact on future law changes and debates over gender equality, individual freedom, and the right to privacy in India.

In conclusion
The Joseph Shine case marks a significant turning point in Indian legal principles, indicating a transition towards more progressive understandings of constitutional rights in the context of personal relationships. The Supreme Court supported values of equality, dignity, and personal liberty by invalidating Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC. The verdict had a significant impact not just on criminal law but also on wider societal debates concerning gender equality, individual rights, and privacy.

  1. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
  2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  4. Constitution of India, 1950.
Written By: Professor Dr Poornima Eknath Surve, Dr D. Y Patil College Of Law Nerul Navi Mumbai

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage


It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media


One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...


The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...


Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly