Case Brief: Joseph Shine v. Union of India

NAME OF THE CASE	JOSEPH SHINE V. UNION OF INDIA
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CITATION	2018 SC 1676
BENCH	JUSTICE DEEPAK MISHRA, JUSTICE R.F NARIMAN, JUSTICE D.Y CHANDRACHUD, JUSTICE A.M KHANWILKAR AND JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
PETITIONER	JOSEPH SHINE
RESPONDENT	UNION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION 

The seminal case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) was a turning point in the development of constitutional law and gender justice in India. In this path-breaking judgment, the Supreme Court, by a unanimous voice, declared Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), criminalizing adultery, unconstitutional. The Court declared the provision to be unconstitutional on grounds of violating fundamental rights such as the right to equality (Article 14), ban on discrimination (Article 15), and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). Prior to this ruling, Section 497 was a hangover of colonial morality that criminalized men only for indulging in adultery with married women with the latter’s consent. Women were seen as mere victims or property and did not possess any legal agency. This old legal regime perpetuated patriarchal discourse and undermined the principle of equal status in law for women. In holding the provision to be unconstitutional, the Court furthered the law of personal liberty, privacy, and gender equality. It reiterated the doctrine that individual decisions, particularly in issues of intimacy and marriage, have to be states-free unless they cause harm to others. The case also highlighted the role of the judiciary in re-evaluating colonial law in terms of a dynamic constitutional vision. 

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Joseph Shine, an Indian national living in Italy, moved a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution raising a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC. These sections made adultery a criminal offense but punished only the man having a sexual relationship with an adulterous married woman, subject to the condition that the act was committed without the consent of her husband. Women were neither punishable nor given any judicial remedy against errant spouses. The petitioner further submitted that the provision: Deprived of women legal agency. Treated women as property. Demonstrated patriarchal and archaic values. Violated basic rights. Submitted that this kind of gender-biased system was not to be found in a modern democracy and requested the Court to criminalize adultery, aligning Indian law with modern constitutional and international human rights norms.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether section 497IPC violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the constitution.
2. Whether it is based on patriarchal assumptions treating women as property.
3. Whether adultery should remain a criminal offence when civil remedies like divorce are available 
4. Whether the state has a legitimate interest in regulating consensual adult relationships.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER 

• Violation of Article 14: Section 497 discriminated by punishing men alone for adultery and not taking cognizance of the equal role played by women in the act. Such gender classification did not have a reasonable nexus and was violative of the concept of equality before the law. 
• Violation of Article 15: The legislation assumed the subordination of the woman to the husband and treated her as property and not as an individual with autonomy. It reinforced stereotypical views along gender lines and thereby offended Article 15’s ban on discrimination based on sex. 
• Violation of Article 21: Criminalizing private, consensual sexual acts between adults invaded the privacy and personal liberty of the person. Adultery being a personal issue of morality should not attract penal sanctions. 
• Obsolete Morality: The petitioner contended that adultery was a private issue best resolved with civil remedies like judicial separation or divorce, not criminal prosecution. 
• Global Perspective: The petitioner emphasized that some democratic nations had already decriminalized adultery, understanding that criminal law ought not to be employed in controlling consensual private behavior. 
• Denial of Women’s Agency: Exempting women from liability, the law treated them as passive recipients and strengthened patriarchal myths. This undermined women’s equal status under the law and did not acknowledge their agency. 
• State Intrusion: The petitioner claimed that the state had no business policing moral conduct within the privacy of the home, particularly where no public harm or violation of peace occurred. 

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT (UNION OF INDIA) 

• Defense of Marriage: The government argued that the law was put in place to promote the sanctity and purity of the marital institution by dissuading premarital relationships. 
• Social Order: Adultery might result in the destruction of families, emotional shock, and instability, especially on the part of children. Criminalizing adultery was portrayed as a deterrent to maintain family cohesion. 
• Moral Deterrence: The law was viewed as maintaining social moral standards and averting conduct that might drive people towards immorality and social anarchy. 
• Legislative Competence: The State contended that criminalization issues were legislative in nature, and the judiciary must not encroach on the legislature’s wisdom unless a law was clearly arbitrary or against the constitution. 
• Dread of Moral Deterioration: The government feared that the removal of penal sanctions would raise the number of cases of infidelity and, therefore, cause the institution of marriage to collapse. 

JUDGMENT AND REASONING 

On 27 September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided unanimously that Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC were unconstitutional. The material reasons of the Court consisted of: 

• Violation of Fundamental Rights under Section 497 was deemed to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it was gender-based classification without rational basis. 
• Rejection of Gender Stereotypes the Court rejected the gender stereotype that women are the property of their husbands. It held that the presumption of law regarding male ownership of female sexuality was unconstitutional. 
• Right to Privacy and Autonomy the Court reiterated that private choices and relationships are guaranteed by Article 21. Quoting Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court stated that privacy encompasses autonomy over choices in intimacy. 
• Adultery as a Civil Matter the ruling made it clear that although adultery may be immoral or a reason for divorce, it was not subject to criminal prosecution. 
• Constitutional Morality Evolves  The Court reinforced the fact that the law must keep pace with modern constitutional values and cannot justify state intrusion into private matters using archaic norms. 
•  Criminalizing adultery was deemed to be disproportionate and an infringement on personal dignity, contrary to the spirit of individual freedom and choice. Broader 
•  The ruling struck down a law that was inherently gender-skewed and contributed towards laying the ground for gender-neutral legal principles. 
• Judicial Role in Legal Reform the case demonstrated the role of judicial review in testing and declaring past laws as incompatible with constitutional rights. 
•  In the wake of Puttaswamy, the judgment reaffirmed the position that the state has no right to intrude on private, consensual adult relationships. 
• The verdict led to broader debate on the necessity to revisit other colonial laws which are no longer consistent with the Constitution. 

CONCLUSION 

The Joseph Shine judgment was a historic verdict in favor of gender equality and personal freedom. By decriminalizing adultery, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the law had to adapt with altered social mores. The ruling asserted that personal choices and morality had to be left free from the control of criminal laws, particularly since civil laws can offer sufficient remedies. This case established a precedent for the refusal to entertain so-called outdated, gendered laws and reaffirmed India’s progressive interpretation of the fundamental rights. The ruling also marks an important move toward a legal system that gives equal importance to personal freedoms, privacy, and the right to equality. In the future, this case will be the benchmark for further legal reforms that aim to achieve justice and fair dealings in personal and social relations.