Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Adultery Decriminalised

Quick Summary

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) is the case in which the Supreme Court of India removed adultery as a criminal offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Earlier, the law said that if a man had sexual relations with a married woman without the consent of her husband, he could be punished with jail and fine. The woman was not punished, and only the husband could file the case. The law assumed that the wife had no independent choice.

The Court held that this law:

• treated the wife like the property of her husband,
• punished only the man and gave the wife no right to complain,
• violated equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15) and privacy and dignity (Article 21).

After this judgment, adultery is not a crime in India. However, it is still a ground for divorce and other matrimonial remedies.

Issues Before the Court

The Court mainly had to answer two clear questions:

1. Are Section 497 IPC and Section 198 CrPC constitutional?
   In simple words: Are these provisions valid under the Constitution, or do they violate fundamental rights?
2. Should adultery be treated as a criminal offence at all?
   The Court had to balance:
   • the so-called “sanctity of marriage”, and
   • individual liberty, privacy and gender equality inside marriage.

So the dispute was between an old, moralistic view of marriage and a modern, rights-based view of individual partners.

Rules & Legal Provisions

Key statutory provisions

• Section 497, Indian Penal Code (IPC)
  Adultery was defined as a man having sexual relations with a married woman, without the consent or connivance of her husband. Only the man could be punished with up to 5 years’ imprisonment and fine. The woman was treated as if she was a passive victim.
• Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
  Only the husband of the married woman (or in some cases, a person who had care of her) could file a complaint of adultery. The wife had no similar right against her husband.

Relevant constitutional provisions

• Article 14 – Right to equality before law and equal protection of laws.
• Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sex, among others.
• Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty, including dignity, privacy and autonomy.

Later development

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the IPC, also does not reintroduce adultery as a criminal offence. This shows that the new criminal code follows the constitutional values highlighted in Joseph Shine.

Arguments – Petitioner vs Respondent

The Supreme Court, speaking in one voice, held that Section 497 IPC is unconstitutional, and that Section 198 CrPC is also unconstitutional to the extent it relates to the adultery offence.

The Court made the following key points:

• No rational principle: There was no reasonable principle to criminalise consensual sexual activity between adults in this selective way.
• Violation of equality: By punishing only the man and denying equal rights to the wife, the law violated Article 14. It treated women as unequal partners in marriage.
• Gender stereotype: The law relied on outdated, paternalistic stereotypes about women, which is against Article 15.
• Dignity and privacy: Criminalising adultery interfered with personal choices in intimate matters and affected human dignity and privacy, protected under Article 21.
• Civil, not criminal: The Court clarified that adultery may continue as a civil wrong and a ground for divorce, but it should not be punished by criminal law.
• Old precedents overruled: Earlier decisions such as Sowmithri Vishnu (1985) and V. Revathi (1988), which had upheld Section 497, were formally overruled.

Overall, the Court moved from a patriarchal view of marriage to a rights-based view of individual partners. Criminal law, it said, is not a tool to control private, consensual adult relationships.

Ratio Decidendi – Core Legal Principle

The ratio decidendi of the case can be summarised in one simple idea:

“A married woman is not the property of her husband. Adultery, though morally wrong, cannot be treated as a criminal offence. Any law that denies women equal dignity and autonomy in marriage, and criminalises consensual adult relationships, is unconstitutional.”

The main legal principles are:

• Equality in marriage: Both spouses are equal partners in the eyes of the Constitution; the law cannot reduce the wife to an object over whom the husband has special rights.
• Constitutional morality over social morality: Criminal law must follow constitutional values like equality, dignity and autonomy, not outdated, moralistic views of society.
• Limited role of criminal law: Criminal law should be used for clear public wrongs, not for private moral failings between consenting adults.
• Gender neutrality and agency: Women are independent rights-holders with full agency in matters of sexuality. A law which assumes otherwise is invalid.

Why This Case Matters

• End of a colonial, patriarchal law: The case removed an old colonial provision that treated women as subordinates within marriage.
• Strengthening gender equality: It reinforced the idea that men and women are equal partners in marriage and before the law.
• Expansion of privacy and dignity: Following privacy cases like Puttaswamy, this judgment applied privacy and dignity principles to intimate choices within marriage.
• Clear line between sin and crime: The Court made it clear that not every moral wrong is a legal crime. Adultery may be a breach of trust, but it is not a public wrong requiring jail.
• Influence on new criminal code: The absence of adultery from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita shows how constitutional reasoning can reshape criminal law drafting.

Key Takeaways for Exams

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SHINE”

Think of the name SHINE to remember what the case stands for:

• S – Section 497 struck down
• H – Husband no longer owns wife
• I – Individual privacy and autonomy
• N – No jail, only civil remedy
• E – Equality in marriage

3-Step Memory Hook (Old Law → Challenge → New Law)

1. Old Law: Only the man was punished; the wife could not complain; husband treated as master of wife’s sexuality.
2. Challenge: Citizen files Article 32 petition, arguing violation of equality, non-discrimination and privacy.
3. New Law Position: Supreme Court decriminalises adultery; marriage becomes a partnership of equals; adultery survives only as a ground for divorce.

IRAC Outline

I – Issue

Whether Section 497 IPC and Section 198 CrPC, which criminalised adultery in a one-sided and patriarchal manner, are consistent with Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

R – Rule

• Article 14 – Laws must be non-arbitrary and treat equals equally.
• Article 15 – State cannot discriminate on the ground of sex.
• Article 21 – Life and personal liberty include privacy, dignity and sexual autonomy.

A – Application

The law punished only the man and gave the wife no right to complain. It treated the woman as if she belonged to her husband. It ignored her independent choice and agency. By entering the private sphere of marriage and criminalising consensual adult behaviour, the State overstepped its role and violated privacy and dignity. The classification between men and women, and between husbands and wives, lacked a rational basis.

C – Conclusion

Section 497 IPC and Section 198 CrPC (as far as adultery is concerned) are unconstitutional. Adultery cannot be treated as a criminal offence, but may continue as a civil wrong and a ground for divorce.

Glossary – Simple Meanings

Adultery

Voluntary sexual relations between a married person and someone who is not their spouse.

Patriarchal Law

A law based on the idea that men are in control and women are dependent or secondary.

Constitutional Morality

The values of the Constitution, such as equality, liberty, dignity and justice, which guide how laws should be made and applied.

Sexual Autonomy

A person’s right to make free and informed choices about their intimate and sexual life.

Civil Wrong

A wrong that leads to civil remedies like divorce or damages, but not to criminal punishment like jail.

FAQs – Student Doubts

Related Cases to Revise