Judgement Briefs

Criminal Law

Joseph Shine v. Union of India

(2019) 3 SCC 39

Citation
(2019) 3 SCC 39
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
2019

Facts

  • Joseph Shine filed a constitutional petition challenging Section 497 IPC.
  • The provision criminalised adultery by a man with another man’s wife without the husband’s consent or connivance.
  • It did not punish the married woman.
  • Section 198(2) CrPC restricted who could initiate prosecution.
  • The challenge argued that the scheme:
  • treated a wife as the property of her husband;
  • made the husband’s consent decisive;
  • denied women equal sexual agency;
  • criminalised private consensual conduct between adults.
  • A five-judge Constitution Bench considered equality, sex discrimination, dignity, privacy and autonomy.

Issues

  • Whether Section 497 violated Articles 14, 15 and 21.
  • Whether criminalisation of consensual adultery was a legitimate restriction on personal autonomy.
  • Whether the supposed protection of women justified the provision.
  • Whether Section 198(2) CrPC could survive with Section 497.

Rule

  • Article 14 prohibits manifestly arbitrary and irrational classifications.
  • Article 15 prohibits sex discrimination and does not permit paternalistic laws that reinforce stereotypes.
  • Article 21 protects:
  • dignity;
  • privacy;
  • personal autonomy;
  • sexual choice between consenting adults.
  • Criminal law should not enforce one spouse’s proprietary control over another.
  • Adultery may remain:
  • a matrimonial wrong;
  • a ground for divorce;
  • relevant in civil family proceedings.
  • Decriminalisation does not amount to moral approval of adultery.

Application

  • Section 497 made the husband’s consent central:
  • intercourse with his wife could cease to be criminal if he consented;
  • the wife’s own choice was legally irrelevant.
  • This structure treated the woman as belonging to the husband.
  • Female immunity was not genuine equality-protecting legislation.
  • It rested on the stereotype that women:
  • lack sexual agency;
  • are always seduced;
  • cannot be morally or legally responsible.
  • The provision also treated men as aggressors based solely on sex.
  • Marriage does not extinguish the constitutional identity or autonomy of either spouse.
  • Criminal punishment was disproportionate because adultery involves consensual adult conduct and does not, by itself, create the kind of public harm requiring imprisonment.
  • The State could protect marriage through civil law without invading intimate private choices through criminal prosecution.
  • The Court rejected the argument that criminalisation was necessary to preserve family stability.
  • A marriage cannot be sustained through fear of penal punishment.
  • Because Section 198(2) depended on the adultery offence, its relevant operation also became unconstitutional.
  • Earlier cases, including Yusuf Abdul Aziz and Sowmithri Vishnu, were overruled to the extent they upheld Section 497.

Held

  • The Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional.
  • It held that the provision violated equality, non-discrimination, dignity, privacy and autonomy.
  • Adultery remains a civil matrimonial wrong but is no longer a criminal offence.
  • Use this case for: consensual adultery cannot be criminalised through a paternalistic law treating the wife as the husband’s property.