Coolblack5: adding first entry and citations

2026-03-24T13:58:20Z

adding first entry and citations

New page

{{Short description|2018 landmark case decriminalising adultery}}
{{Use Indian English|date=August 2025}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2025}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Joseph Shine v. Union of India
| court = [[Supreme Court of India]]
| date decided = September 27, 2018
| image = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India 2025.svg
| imagesize =
| caption =
| citations = AIR 2018 SC 4898; {{Abbr|WP|Writ Petition}} (Criminal) 194/2017
| ECLI =
| prior actions = Referred from a three-judge bench to a five-judge Constitution Bench
| subsequent_actions = Clarification on January 31, 2023, regarding applicability to Armed Forces
| opinions = Four concurring opinions; Section 497 IPC struck down as unconstitutional
| judges = Dipak Misra, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra
| keywords = Adultery, Decriminalisation, Section 497 IPC, Gender Equality, Constitutional Law
}}

'''''Joseph Shine v. Union of India'''''., {{Abbr|AIR|All India Reporter}} 2018 SC 4898, was a landmark judgement by the [[Supreme Court of India]] that decriminalised [[Adultery law in India|adultery]] by stricking down the Section 497 of [[Indian Penal Code]]. The ruling is known for recognising principles of equality, individual rights and autonomy, and extending sexual privacy to the fundamental right to privacy.

The judgement was delivered unanimously by a five-judge [[Constitution bench (India)|constitution bench]] consisting of Justices [[Dipak Misra]], [[R. F. Nariman]], [[A. M. Khanwilkar]], [[D. Y. Chandrachud]], [[Indu Malhotra]] on September 27, 2018. The court further clarified its order in 2023 that it did not apply to the military personnel.

== Background ==
The core challenge in the case was the constitutional validity of the Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which criminalised adultery for married men with a maximum sentence of up to five years. Women were exempted from the prosecution as well as married men who engaged in sexual intercourse with unmarried women.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Decriminalisation of Adultery |url=https://www.scobserver.in/cases/joseph-shine-v-union-of-india-decriminalisation-of-adultery-background/ |access-date=2025-08-10 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref> Further, section 198(2) of [[Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (India)|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973]] (CrPC) specified that only the aggrieved husband may file a complaint for the offence of adultery.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Rajagopal |first=Krishnadas |date=2018-09-27 |title=Adultery no longer a criminal offence as SC scraps Section 497 of IPC |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/adultery-not-a-criminal-offence-as-sc-strikes-down-section-497-of-ipc/article61529096.ece |access-date=2025-08-10 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN}}</ref>{{Quote box
| title = Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
| quote = '''497. Adultery —'''
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor.
| source =
| width = 40%
}}Joseph Shine, a [[Non resident Indian|non-resident Indian]] from Kerala, filed a [[Public interest litigation in India|public interest litigation]] under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) of the CrPC. The [[Government of India]] in its counter-[[affidavit]] opposed the challenge arguing to retain adultery as an offence to preserve the "sanctity of marriage."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bench |first=Bar & |date=2018-08-08 |title=Adultery Hearing: Marriage is a sacred institution, any intrusion should attract penal consequences: Pinky Anand |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/challenge-to-adultery-under-ipc-live-updates-from-supreme-court-day-3 |access-date=2025-08-11 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news |language=en}}</ref>

== Judgement ==
The judgement was delivered on September 27, 2018, by a five-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. The bench held unanimously, in four concurring judgments, that the law was archaic, arbitrary and paternalistic, and infringed upon a woman's autonomy, dignity, and privacy. It struck down Section 497 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 198(2) of the CrPC as unconstitutional, to the extent that it was applicable to Section 497.<ref name=":0" />

However, the Court clarified that adultery remains a valid ground for divorce under civil law. It further held that if an act of adultery results in the aggrieved spouse committing suicide, the adulterous partner may be prosecuted for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bench |first=Bar & |date=2018-09-27 |title=Breaking: Adultery no longer a Crime, Supreme Court strikes down Section 497 IPC |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/breaking-adultery-no-longer-crime-supreme-court-section-497-ipc-unconstitutional |access-date=2025-08-10 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news |language=en}}</ref>

CJI Misra wrote on behalf of himself and Justice Khanwilkar. Justices Nariman, Chandrachud and Malhotra wrote separate concurring opinions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tewari |first=Anadi |date=2024-11-09 |title=20 important judgments passed by Justice DY Chandrachud as Supreme Court judge |url=https://www.barandbench.com/columns/litigation-columns/20-important-judgments-justice-dy-chandrachud-supreme-court |access-date=2025-08-10 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news |language=en}}</ref>

=== CJI Mishra and Justice Khanwilkar ===
The court rejected the government's objection to protect and preserve the sanctity of marriage noting:
{{Blockquote|text=The sanctity of marriage can be utterly destroyed by a married man having sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman or a widow, as has been seen hereinabove. Also, if the husband consents or connives at such sexual intercourse, the offence is not committed, thereby showing that it is not sanctity of marriage which is sought to be protected and preserved, but a proprietary right of a husband. Secondly, no deterrent effect has been shown to exist, or ever to have existed, which may be a legitimate consideration for a State enacting criminal law.}}

== Exception for military personnel ==
In 2023, the Supreme Court further clarified its order on how it applied to the military personnel. The Government of India argued that military personnel were a "distinct class" under Article 33 of the Indian Constitution and subject to their own specific laws such as [[Army Act, 1950]], for their conduct including adultery. The court upheld the government's stance allowing adultery to remain punishable for members of the armed forces.<ref name=":1" />

== Significance ==
The decriminalisation of adultery is considered a landmark ruling in the Indian constitutional law and gender jurisprudence, particularly in its treatment of women and gender equality.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2025-02-15 |title=Adultery in modern Indian law: From decriminalisation to civil relevance |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Feb/15/adultery-in-modern-indian-law-from-decriminalisation-to-civil-relevance |access-date=2025-08-10 |website=The New Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> It recognised autonomous rights of women, viewing Section 497 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and overruled precedents in ''Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. State of Bombay (1954 SCR 930), Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India ((1985) Supp SCC 137) and Vishnu Revathi vs. Union of India ((1988) 2 SCC 72).''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Joseph Shine vs. Union of India |url=https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/joseph-shine-vs-union-of-india |access-date=2025-08-11 |website=privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org}}</ref> The ruling further reinforced the right to privacy, including sexual privacy, and personal autonomy under Article 21, aligning with the court's earlier ruling in [[Puttaswamy v. Union of India|''K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India'']] (2017), which recognised privacy as a fundamental right.

== See also ==

* [[Right to Privacy verdict]]
* [[List of landmark court decisions in India]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

* Full text for ''Joseph Shine v. Union of India.'', AIR 2018 SC 4898, can be found at: [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42184625/ India Kanoon]

{{SCI-cases}}

[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases in 2018]]
[[Category:2018 in Indian law]]
[[Category:Indian constitutional case law]]
[[Category:Privacy in India]]
[[Category:Adultery in law]]

Joseph Shine v. Union of India - Revision history

Coolblack5: adding first entry and citations