Author: Aashna, a student at University School of Law and Legal Studies
To the Point
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018) is one of the landmark cases in Indian legal history. It is a revolutionary take on the gender biasness of the Indian law. It sought to challenge the offence of adultery as mentioned under section 497 of IPC on the grounds of equality and gender-based discrimination. Moreover, it brought into focus the fact that no law in the present context is relevant if it is based upon the Victorian era morality-it ceases to be relevant, if it does not change with the evolving times.
Abstract
This article revolves around the case which decriminalized adultery in India. In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the petitioner filed a special leave petition under Article 136, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed that the language of the section was utterly biased in nature and looked down on the independent status of women as individuals. Thus, the given article discusses the case in detail with a special focus on the legal basis, the reasoning and the overall impact of the judgement and its relevance. It aims to show how the ruling of this case contributed to ensuring gender justice in India. It also aims to show the development of the Indian judiciary and the contrast between social morality and legal morality.
Use of Legal Jargon
The given article discusses a case related to adultery. Adultery under section 497 of IPC is defined as a consensual act of sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman without the consent of her husband. In such a case the man is considered the offender. Thus, the given section definitely gives a special treatment to the woman who is equally involved in the act but not criminally liable. The same was meant to be enlightened through the petition by the petitioner. He demanded gender neutrality in the law i.e. the law should apply equally to both the genders, keeping in mind the fundamental rights such as the right to equality (Article 14), right to non-discrimination (Article 15) and right to personal liberty and dignity (Article 21). As a part of the judgement to this case, the S.C decriminalized the offence of adultery in India. This means that adultery is no longer considered a criminal offense. This is an attempt to promote legal gender equality i.e. no law should offer a special position to a specific gender for the same offence.
The Proof
Section 497 of IPC which now stands repealed, defined adultery as “sexual intercourse with the wife of another man, without the consent of the husband, not amounting to rape. Thus, as per the language of the law- it only holds the man accountable, the woman is considered to be a victim in every case. This law clearly is violative of the basic rights that have been guaranteed to all the citizens of the country- the “Fundamental Rights”. For instance, article 21 of the constitution guarantees a right to dignity and individual autonomy to every citizen. However, criminalizing adultery which is an act between two adults based on mutual consent in itself is undermining their dignity and autonomy as adults. The ruling in this case clearly separates the idea of legal morality from social morality. As remarked by former Chief Justice, D.Y Chandrachud, what is morally or ethically wrong need not necessarily be legally wrong. Thus, the act of adultery was decriminalized on the basis that criminal law is no tool to protect the sanctity of a social institution like marriage, it serves a greater purpose in ensuring the overall well-being of the society. Moreover, section 497 of IPC was evidently reflecting arbitrariness. In the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, the judgment introduced the concept of “manifest arbitrariness” as a basis for declaring a law unconstitutional if it is unintelligible, irrational, or discriminatory in nature. Since adultery clearly held only men criminally responsible and outlooked on the dignity and autonomy of women- it is clearly unconstitutional.
Case Laws
Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India (2018)
In the given case, a group of petitioners filed a petition in the Supreme court against the constitutional validity of section 377 of IPC which criminalizes intercourse between two people of the same sex. So, the main issue that the court dealt with in the given case was whether what is morally wrong necessarily be a legal wrong? Just like in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India, there was a conflict between legal morality and social morality. However, the Supreme Court in both the cases upheld that under the Indian constitution, legal morality is given preference over social morality. Therefore, it ruled in favour of the petitioners, decriminalizing sec 377 of IPC since it ceased to be constitutional.
V. Revathi v. Union of India (1988)-overruled*
The given case is a much older judgement on the same issue which has been raised in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India. This judgment upheld the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. It was based on the patriarchal norms and mindset hence, did not recognize the law as offensive to women; dignity and autonomy. The ruling was based on the surrounding or prevailing norms of the society at that time. However, the same issue was seen in a different lens in the 21st century, pertaining to the change in the ideologies and the interpretations of different constitutional ideals. This case shows a clear contrast- how the validity of the same law changes with changing times.
Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985)-overruled*
In this case, the petitioner was a woman who sought to challenge the discriminatory nature of section 497 of IPC. However, the same was rejected by the Supreme Court simply stating that the law was protective rather than discriminatory and that it was not unconstitutional on any reasonable grounds, However, the same was ultimately overruled in the ruling of Joseph Shine v. Union of India where the court recognized these claims along with other reasonable grounds to declare it as unconstitutional in nature. This case, just like the case of Revathi v. Union of India shows the evolution of various social norms and gender roles. It shows a positive growth in the Indian judiciary and its ability to interpret different laws and ideals of constitution to finally achieve success at separating social morality with legal morality.
*The overruled cases have been mentioned with the motive of showcasing the positive development in the ability of the Indian judiciary to change with the changing needs of the society.
Conclusion
Thus, the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India does not only decriminalize adultery in India but also promotes the very basic ideals of the Indian Constitution. It shows a spirit of equality, justice, morality and flexibility. It lays focus on the adaptable nature of Indian laws-they are not rigid, they can be challenged in the court on the basis of their constitutionality and relevance in the present time. Just like the offence of adultery which was discriminatory in nature and was based on conservative values which are not acceptable in the present-day Indian society. Moreover, it is a controversial take at preserving individual dignity and autonomy by legally recognizing consensual relations between two adults.
FAQs
Is Adultery completely decriminalized in India?
While adultery is decriminalized in India, it is no longer an offence under Indian law. It may still be considered as an offence under military law.
Does adultery still count as a ground for divorce?
Yes, adultery remains a valid legal ground for divorce, even though it is no longer classified as a criminal offense.
How was section 497 discriminatory in nature?
Section 497 of IPC stated that establishing of consensual sexual relations between a man and a married woman counts as an offence if it is done without the consent of the husband. It only held the man criminally liable, the woman was always considered a victim despite the circumstances of the case. Moreover, it raises questions on the dignity of a woman as an independent individual as she is subject to her husband’s authority as per the language of the repealed section. Thus, it was discriminatory in every sense.
What is meant by the term ‘Victorian era morality’?
The phrase “Victorian era morality” describes the moral principles and social norms that were promoted and practiced in India during the British colonial rule. It often involved gender biased laws, suppression of women and an over emphasis on values such as virtue and chastity especially for women.
How does the case of “Joseph Shine v. Union of India” promote gender justice?
The ruling to the given case decriminalizes an offence which clearly favored women over men and completely neglected the dignity of women. Thus, in a way it made it clear that no discriminatory law shall exist in the current times, ensuring gender justice.
Sources
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 189
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 791
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 791
Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, 1985 Supp SCC 137
