LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes adultery, and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the procedure for filing a complaint, are constitutionally valid.
CASE TYPE: Criminal, Constitutional Law
Case Name: Joseph Shine vs. Union of India
Judgment Date: 27 September 2018
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 843
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI (authored the majority opinion), A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (concurring with CJI), R.F. Nariman, J. (concurring), and Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. (concurring), Indu Malhotra, J. (concurring)
Can the State dictate the terms of intimacy between consenting adults? The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, addressed this question by decriminalizing adultery, a move that has significant implications for personal autonomy and gender equality. This post summarizes the Supreme Court’s decision, outlining the key issues, arguments, and the court’s reasoning.
Case Background
The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized adultery. The petitioner argued that the provision was discriminatory, arbitrary, and violated the fundamental rights of individuals. The case was initially heard by a three-judge bench, which, after noting conflicting precedents, referred the matter to a larger bench for a re-look at the constitutionality of the provision.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1860 | Indian Penal Code (IPC) enacted, including Section 497 on adultery. |
| 1954 | Supreme Court upholds Section 497 in Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, viewing it as a special provision for women. |
| 1971 | The 42nd Law Commission Report recommends retaining Section 497 with modifications. |
| 1985 | Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Section 497 in Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India. |
| 1988 | Supreme Court rejects challenge to Section 497 and Section 198 CrPC in V. Revathi v. Union of India. |
| 2003 | Justice Malimath Committee recommends making Section 497 gender-neutral. |
| 27 September 2018 | Supreme Court decriminalizes adultery in Joseph Shine v. Union of India. |
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily concerns two legal provisions:
-
✓ Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines adultery as sexual intercourse by a man with the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man. The wife is not punishable as an abettor.
“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 not be punishable as an abettor.” -
✓ Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Specifies that only the husband of the woman is deemed to be aggrieved by the offence of adultery.
“For the purposes of sub-section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 497 or section 498 of the said Code: Provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his behalf.”
Arguments
Arguments by the Petitioner:
- ✓ Section 497 treats women as subordinate to men, as the offence is nullified if the husband consents or connives.
- ✓ The provision treats women as the property of men, as a woman’s consent is not relevant, only the husband’s.
- ✓ The law is discriminatory as it does not punish a married man for having sexual relations with an unmarried woman or a widow.
- ✓ Section 198 CrPC is arbitrary as it only recognizes the husband as an aggrieved party.
- ✓ The provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution by being manifestly arbitrary and Article 21 by infringing on the dignity and privacy of women.
- ✓ The law perpetuates gender stereotypes, viewing women as passive victims and men as seducers.
- ✓ The law infringes on the sexual autonomy of women, a facet of individual liberty under Article 21.
Arguments by the Respondent:
- ✓ Adultery is a moral wrong that affects the stability of the family, the fundamental unit of society.
- ✓ The State has a legitimate interest in protecting the institution of marriage.
- ✓ Section 497 is a special provision made for women and is thus protected by Article 15(3).
- ✓ The law deters individuals from engaging in conduct that is potentially harmful to a marital relationship.
- ✓ Adultery is not merely a private wrong, but also a public wrong that affects the community.
- ✓ The State has the power to criminalize acts that are harmful to society.
Sub-Submissions Table
| Petitioner’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| Section 497 treats women as subordinate to men. | Adultery is a moral wrong that affects family stability. |
| The law considers women as property. | The State has a legitimate interest in protecting marriage. |
| Section 497 is discriminatory against women. | Section 497 is a special provision for women under Article 15(3). |
| The law violates Article 14 and Article 21. | The law deters harmful conduct. |
| The law perpetuates gender stereotypes. | Adultery is a public wrong. |
| The law infringes on sexual autonomy. | The State can criminalize harmful acts. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for adjudication:
- Whether Section 497 of the IPC is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether Section 198 of the CrPC, which deals with the procedure for filing a complaint in relation to the offence of adultery, is constitutionally valid.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 497 of the IPC is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. | Yes, Section 497 is unconstitutional. | The provision treats women as subordinate, perpetuates gender stereotypes, and violates the right to equality, dignity, and privacy. |
| Whether Section 198 of the CrPC, which deals with the procedure for filing a complaint in relation to the offence of adultery, is constitutionally valid. | Section 198 CrPC is unconstitutional to the extent it applies to adultery. | Since Section 497 is unconstitutional, the procedural provision must also be struck down to the extent it relates to adultery. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered various authorities, including:
Cases:
- ✓ Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, 1954 SCR 930 – Supreme Court of India: Initially upheld Section 497 as a special provision for women.
- ✓ Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, (1985) Supp SCC 137 – Supreme Court of India: Dismissed a challenge to Section 497, stating it was a matter of legislative policy.
- ✓ V. Revathi v. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 72 – Supreme Court of India: Upheld Section 497 and Section 198 CrPC, stating they form a legislative packet.
- ✓ Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: Established the test of manifest arbitrariness for invalidating legislation.
- ✓ K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: Affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
- ✓ Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: Decriminalized homosexuality, emphasizing individual autonomy.
- ✓ Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 – Supreme Court of India: Held that an extra-marital relationship is not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide.
- ✓ Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 11 SCC 753 – Supreme Court of India: Held that an illicit relationship does not automatically constitute mental cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
- ✓ Oliverson v. West Valley City, 875 F. Supp. 1465 – U.S. Court: Upheld the constitutionality of Utah’s adultery statute.
- ✓ Hobbs v. Smith, No. 15 CVS 5646 (2017) – Superior Court of North Carolina: Struck down North Carolina’s adultery statute as unconstitutional.
- ✓ DE v RH, [2015] ZACC 18 – Constitutional Court of South Africa: Held that an aggrieved spouse could no longer seek damages against a third party in cases of adultery.
- ✓ 2009 Hun -Ba 17, (26.02.2015) – Constitutional Court of South Korea: Struck down the criminalization of adultery.
Legal Provisions:
- ✓ Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law.
- ✓ Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
- ✓ Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India: Allows the State to make special provisions for women and children.
- ✓ Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
- ✓ Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the offence of adultery.
- ✓ Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Specifies who can file a complaint for adultery.
Authority Usage Table
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay – Supreme Court of India | Overruled on its limited ratio. |
| Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India – Supreme Court of India | Overruled for failing to address substantive constitutional issues. |
| V. Revathi v. Union of India – Supreme Court of India | Overruled for upholding a discriminatory provision. |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India – Supreme Court of India | Followed for the test of manifest arbitrariness. |
| K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – Supreme Court of India | Followed for establishing privacy as a fundamental right. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India – Supreme Court of India | Followed for emphasizing individual autonomy and the right to choose. |
| Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat – Supreme Court of India | Cited to show adultery is not linked to abetment of suicide. |
| Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat – Supreme Court of India | Cited to show adultery is not linked to mental cruelty. |
| Oliverson v. West Valley City – U.S. Court | Cited as an example of a court upholding adultery laws. |
| Hobbs v. Smith – Superior Court of North Carolina | Cited as an example of a court striking down adultery laws. |
| DE v RH – Constitutional Court of South Africa | Cited to show that adultery does not protect marriages. |
| 2009 Hun -Ba 17, (26.02.2015) – Constitutional Court of South Korea | Cited as an example of a court decriminalizing adultery. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner | Section 497 treats women as subordinate to men. | Accepted; the court held that the provision treats women as property. |
| Petitioner | The law is discriminatory against women. | Accepted; the court found the provision to be discriminatory and violative of Article 15. |
| Petitioner | The law violates Article 14 and Article 21. | Accepted; the court held the law to be arbitrary and infringing on the right to dignity and privacy. |
| Respondent | Adultery is a moral wrong affecting family stability. | Rejected; the court held that adultery is a private matter and not a public wrong. |
| Respondent | The State has a legitimate interest in protecting marriage. | Acknowledged but held that the means used were excessive and disproportionate. |
| Respondent | Section 497 is a special provision for women under Article 15(3). | Rejected; the court held the provision perpetuates gender stereotypes and does not uplift women. |
| Respondent | The State can criminalize harmful acts. | Acknowledged but held that adultery does not warrant criminalization. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
• Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay [CITATION]: Overruled on its limited ratio as it did not address the larger constitutional questions.
• Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India [CITATION]: Overruled for failing to address the substantive constitutional issues and for upholding a discriminatory provision.
• V. Revathi v. Union of India [CITATION]: Overruled for upholding a discriminatory provision and for relying on formalistic equality.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to support the test of manifest arbitrariness.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to support the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to support the emphasis on individual autonomy and the right to choose.
• Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: Used to support the view that adultery is not linked to abetment of suicide.
• Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: Used to support the view that an illicit relationship does not automatically constitute mental cruelty.
• Oliverson v. West Valley City [CITATION]: Cited as an example of a court upholding adultery laws, but not followed.
• Hobbs v. Smith [CITATION]: Cited as an example of a court striking down adultery laws, and followed.
• DE v RH [CITATION]: Cited to support the view that adultery does not protect marriages.
• 2009 Hun -Ba 17, (26.02.2015) [CITATION]: Cited as an example of a court decriminalizing adultery.
Reasoning of the Court
The Supreme Court held that Section 497 was manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that:
- ✓ Section 497 treats women as subordinate to men, as the offence is nullified if the husband consents or connives.
- ✓ The provision treats women as the property of men, as a woman’s consent is not relevant, only the husband’s.
- ✓ The law is discriminatory as it does not punish a married man for having sexual relations with an unmarried woman or a widow.
- ✓ Section 198 CrPC is arbitrary as it only recognizes the husband as an aggrieved party.
- ✓ The provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution by being manifestly arbitrary and Article 21 by infringing on the dignity and privacy of women.
- ✓ The law perpetuates gender stereotypes, viewing women as passive victims and men as seducers.
- ✓ The law infringes on the sexual autonomy of women, a facet of individual liberty under Article 21.
- ✓ The Court emphasized that the right to privacy includes the right to choose one’s partner, and that the State has no right to interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.
- ✓ The Court also considered that the law on adultery treats women as chattel, and this is offensive to the dignity of women.
- ✓ The Court also held that the law on adultery is not a valid way to protect the institution of marriage.
- ✓ The Court observed that the concept of adultery as a crime is a relic of the past and has no place in a modern society.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a strong emphasis on individual autonomy, gender equality, and the right to privacy. The Court was particularly concerned with the way Section 497 treated women as subordinate to men and perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes. The Court also emphasized that the State should not interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.
Sentiment Analysis Ranking
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Violation of Gender Equality | 30% |
| Infringement of Individual Autonomy | 25% |
| Violation of Right to Privacy | 20% |
| Manifest Arbitrariness of the Law | 15% |
| Perpetuation of Gender Stereotypes | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (Consideration of legal principles and precedents) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The court’s logical reasoning for each issue can be represented as follows:
Issue 1: Is Section 497 Violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21?
Issue 2: Is Section 198 CrPC constitutionally valid?
The Court also considered various alternative interpretations of Section 497, but ultimately rejected them as they failed to address the core issues of gender equality and individual autonomy.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court’s judgment has several key implications:
- ✓ Adultery is no longer a criminal offence in India.
- ✓ The judgment upholds the principles of gender equality, individual autonomy, and the right to privacy.
- ✓ The decision recognizes that women are not the property of their husbands and have the right to make their own choices.
- ✓ The judgment emphasizes that the State should not interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.
- ✓ The judgment has significant implications for the interpretation of fundamental rights in the context of personal relationships.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198 of the CrPC, to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of adultery, are unconstitutional and struck down.
Specific Amendments Analysis
No specific amendments were discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 497 of the IPC is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The judgment represents a significant shift from previous positions of law, which upheld the constitutionality of Section 497. It emphasizes individual autonomy and gender equality over traditional notions of marital fidelity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to decriminalize adultery marks a significant step towards recognizing individual autonomy and gender equality in India. By striking down Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198 of the CrPC, the court has affirmed that women are not the property of their husbands and have the right to make their own choices regarding their personal lives. This judgment is a landmark in the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in India.
Category
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories: Section 497, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitutional Law; Criminal Law; Gender Equality; Fundamental Rights; Right to Privacy; Individual Autonomy; Marital Relationships
FAQ
Q: What does the Supreme Court’s judgment on adultery mean?
A: The Supreme Court has decriminalized adultery, meaning it is no longer a criminal offence. It is now considered a civil wrong, which can be a ground for divorce.
Q: Can a person be punished for adultery now?
A: No, adultery is no longer a criminal offence. The State cannot punish an individual for adultery.
Q: What are the implications for marital relationships?
A: The judgment emphasizes that women have the right to make their own choices regarding their personal lives, and are not the property of their husbands. However, adultery can still be a ground for divorce.
Q: How does this judgment affect the rights of women?
A: The judgment upholds the principles of gender equality, individual autonomy, and the right to privacy. It recognizes that women have the same rights as men in marital relationships.
Q: Can a husbandstill file for divorce on the grounds of adultery?
A: Yes, adultery remains a valid ground for divorce under civil law.