What did the Supreme Court decide in Joseph Shine v. Union of India?

The Court struck down Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC as unconstitutional. Adultery is no longer a crime, but it remains a ground for divorce.

Which fundamental rights did Section 497 violate?

It violated Articles 14 and 15 due to sex-based discrimination and Article 21 for undermining privacy and personal liberty.

Does this judgment legalise extramarital affairs?

The ruling decriminalises adultery. It does not endorse it; it treats adultery as a civil matter between spouses, not a crime against the State.

Can a spouse still use adultery in matrimonial cases?

Yes. Adultery remains a valid ground for divorce or other civil reliefs under personal and family laws.

Why was Section 497 considered discriminatory?

It punished only men, treated the wife as the husband’s property, and allowed the husband’s consent to control whether an offence existed.

Joseph Shine v. Union of India

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC (adultery) and the connected Section 198(2) CrPC. The Court said these rules treated women like property, punished only men, and ignored privacy and equality. Adultery is no more a crime. It remains a civil ground for divorce.

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: 24 Oct 2025 Keywords: Section 497 IPC, Article 14, Article 21, privacy

Issues

Does Section 497 IPC read with Section 198(2) CrPC violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution?

Rules

Section 497, IPC — Adultery (now struck down).
Section 198(2), CrPC — Who can file the complaint for offences against marriage.

Facts — Timeline

Writ Petition: Joseph Shine, a non-resident Indian, filed a petition under Article 32, challenging Section 497 IPC read with Section 198(2) CrPC.

Discrimination: The law punished only the man for adultery. The woman was treated as a victim or the husband's property, not as an equal adult.

No Complaint by Wife: A wife could not file a complaint against her husband for adultery due to the complaint rule in Section 198(2) CrPC.

Consent Clause: If the husband consented to his wife's relationship, no offence existed. This showed a chattel-like view of women.

Privacy Argument: Article 21 protects privacy and autonomy. Consensual adult relations, while morally debated, fall within personal liberty.

State’s Stand: The State said criminalising adultery protects marriage. It argued privacy is not absolute and can be limited.

Arguments

Petitioner (Shine)

Law punishes only men; women reduced to property — violates Articles 14 & 15.
Consent of husband decides offence — denies women’s autonomy.
Consensual adult relations fall within privacy and personal liberty under Article 21.

Respondent (Union of India)

Criminal rule protects the sanctity of marriage.
Privacy is not absolute; State can set limits for social order.
Adultery harms families; punishment is a deterrent.

Judgment

The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC and held Section 198(2) CrPC unconstitutional to that extent. The Court overruled earlier views that upheld criminal adultery. It clarified that adultery remains a civil wrong and a ground for divorce, but it is not a criminal offence.

Ratio

Equality (Art. 14): One-sided punishment is arbitrary. The law treated women unequally.
Non-Discrimination (Art. 15): Sex-based stereotypes and the “husband’s consent” idea are unconstitutional.
Privacy & Liberty (Art. 21): Consensual adult intimacy is part of personal autonomy. The State should not police private morals through criminal law.
Criminal vs Civil: Crimes are wrongs against society. Adultery is a private marital issue, suitable for civil remedies, not jail.

Why It Matters

The ruling promotes gender equality, respects privacy, and keeps criminal law focused on true public wrongs. It resets marriage issues to the civil law space and rejects the idea that a wife is under her husband’s control.

Key Takeaways

Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC (for adultery) are unconstitutional.
Adultery is decriminalised but stays a ground for divorce.
Judgment is rooted in equality, non-discrimination, and privacy.
Law rejects “husband’s consent controls wife’s body.”

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: E N D — Equality, Non-discrimination, Decide privately

Equality: One-sided law fails Article 14.
Non-discrimination: Stereotypes violate Article 15.
Decide privately: Autonomy under Article 21.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Are Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 21?

Rule: Constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty; IPC 497; CrPC 198(2).

Application: Law punished only men, treated women as property, and let the husband’s consent decide the crime; this offends equality, dignity, and privacy.

Conclusion: Provisions struck down; adultery is a civil wrong, not a crime.

Glossary

Adultery: Voluntary sexual relations between a married person and someone who is not their spouse.
Privacy: Right to keep personal life and choices free from State control.
Civil Wrong: A wrong addressed by civil remedies (like divorce), not criminal punishment.

FAQs

Adultery is not a crime anymore. People cannot be jailed for it. Spouses can still seek divorce or other civil remedies.

No. The Court only said criminal law should not control private adult choices. Morality in marriage remains a civil matter.

She can file civil cases like divorce, custody, or maintenance. The criminal adultery route no longer exists.

Equality (Art. 14), Non-discrimination (Art. 15), and Privacy & Personal Liberty (Art. 21).

Jump to Section

Case Metadata

CASE_TITLE: Joseph Shine v. Union of India
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 497 IPC; Article 14; Article 21; privacy; equality
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: adultery; Section 198(2) CrPC; gender justice
PUBLISH_DATE: 24 Oct 2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: joseph-shine-v-union-of-india