Adultery as defined under section 497 of the indian penal code is the subject of the seminal court case Joseph Shine v. Union of India. section 497 of the indian penal code was called into doubt in this case. But this pre-constitutional system gave more weight to the rights of men because women were still seen as the husband’s property. adultery in india has its roots in male arrogance and patriarchy.
joseph shine vs union of india Case Facts
- The case questions the constitutionality of section 198 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which treats the husband as an aggrieved party in situations of adultery, and section 497 of the indian penal code, 1860 (IPC), which made adultery illegal.
- Adultery was only made illegal under Section 497 IPC for a man who had sex with another man’s wife without the husband’s knowledge or approval. If the wife aids and abets, she is not punished.
- According to section 198 of the code of criminal procedure, a court cannot consider an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC, which includes adultery, unless the woman’s husband files a complaint.
- The petitioner claimed that these clauses contravene Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and the protection of life and personal liberty, and that they discriminate against women and treat them as inferior to men.
joseph shine vs union of india Issues
- Is the section 479 indian penal code, 1860’s constitutional?
- Given that the offense was only taken into consideration when a man, not a woman, committed it, is the law gender biased?
- Is the victim’s spouse entitled to lodge a complaint against her husband’s actions that violate their marriage’s integrity?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s attorney brought up a number of Section 497 violations that went against fundamental rights.
- The petitioner’s attorney also cited Section 497’s historical context, arguing that the law was passed during the British Empire and has no bearing at all on contemporary issues.
- The petitioner argued that the clause is predicated on the idea that a woman is her husband’s property. According to the clause, adultery is not committed if the husband consents.
- The adultery provision violates Article 15 since it gives only men the ability to prosecute against adultery, so discriminating against women. According to the law, a woman who finds out that her husband had sex with another woman when they were not married has absolutely no right to file a complaint.
- The attorney further argued that, because of the laws’ paternalistic and arbitrary nature, they violated the fundamental rights protected by Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- The attorney also contended that since having sex was a voluntary and reciprocal action between the two participants, both of them ought to be held accountable for the consequences.
Respondent:
- The respondents contended that deterrence is required to protect the institution of marriage and that adultery is a criminal that weakens family bonds.
- The right to privacy is not unqualified; it is subject to reasonable restrictions. Furthermore, one should not exploit the right to privacy as a justification for immoral behaviour.
- Furthermore, having extramarital sex with a married individual does not automatically grant privacy protection under Article 21.
- The respondents said that adultery affects the spouse, children, and society as a whole. It is illegal for an outsider to breach a marriage’s sanctity knowing that it would do so.
- The discriminatory nature of the clause is prevented by Article 15(3), which grants governments the ability to adopt special legislation for women and children.
- Society is protected under Section 497 from this immoral behaviour that undermines the institution of marriage. It shouldn’t be overruled as a result.
- They implore the court to leave the provision intact and to simply remove the problematic, illegally declared portion.
joseph shine vs union of india Judgment
- Adultery was made illegal under section 497 of the indian penal code, which was ruled to be unconstitutional due to its blatant arbitrary nature and violations of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
- The clause viewed women as their husbands’ property and was founded on gender stereotypes, the court ruled. Women were denied sexual autonomy, agency, dignity, and privacy in married relationships and were subjected to subjugation as a result of the criminalization of adultery and its exclusive punishment of men.
- Married women must not be seen as their husbands’ property in order to uphold the ideals of substantive equality, constitutional morality, and dignity. A person’s identity and personality are fundamentally shaped by their human sexuality and sexual autonomy.
- The idea that married women should receive “protective discrimination” under section 497 was unconstitutional paternalism since it did not address subordination; rather, it contributed to maintain it.
- Even though Parliament has the authority to enact laws, making adultery a crime would force the State to infringe upon a spouse’s right to excessive privacy over their marriage relationship.
- The Supreme Court overturned its previous rulings and declared section 497 to be unconstitutional in light of these findings.
- The husband was treated as an aggrieved party in offenses under section 497 under section 198(2) of the CrPC, which was ruled to be illegal for violating substantive equality.
The Indian adultery law has been the subject of a fixed and unyielding debate. On the one hand, men’s rights activists have demanded that the provision be reassessed in order to remove the woman’s immunity from prosecution, while the court has justified the provisions by implying that women are unfit to be given agency. These perspectives are overly patriarchal in their analysis of the circumstances. The reserved judgment may choose to stray from these lines of reasoning and concentrate on the primary concern, which is the undermining of women’s rights in criminal law.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
