B JOSEPH SHINE

V.
UNION OF INDIA (2018)
 BACKGROUND OF THE
SECTION 497 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE- 
There were several times before where the question has been arisen on the constitutional validity of section
497 of Indian Penal Code and section 198 of Criminal Procedure Code in front of Supreme Court of India.
 It has been begin with the case of Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay where the husband was accused
of adultery under section 497 of Indian Penal Code. But when the complaint was filed, the husband went
to the Bombay High Court to check the constitutional validity of the provisions under article 228 of the
constitution of India. The case was decided against the husband and an observation was made by Justice
Chagla about the assumption laid down in section 497.
 There was another case Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, where the challenges were made before
the court on the basis of three grounds –
 Section 497 does not give any right to wife to presents a wpmen with whom her husband had committed
adultery.
 This section does not give any right to the wife to prosecute her husband for the act of adultery.
 This section does not covers cases where husband had sexual relations with an unmarried women.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
 Joseph Shine, the hotelier challenged the constitutionality of the section 497 of Indian Penal
Code.
 The core reason  behind this petition was to shield Indian men from being punished for extra
marital relationships by vengeful women or their husbands.
 Petitioner’s close friend in Kerala committed suicide after a women co-worker made malicious
rape charge on him. Further section 497 is an engregious occurrence of sexuality unfairness,
authoritative imperialism and male patriotism.
 The traditional framework in which section 497 was drafted, is no longer applicable in modern
society.
ISSUES-
 Whether section 497 of Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional ?
 The petitioner wanted certain problems with section 497 to be addressed :-
 Adultery law provides that man to be punished in case of adultery but no action is suggested
for the women. Hence, it made the gender neutral.
 As per section 497, there is no legal provision that a woman can file a complaint of adultery
against her husband.
 According to section 497, if the husband gives his consent for such an act then such act is no
more considered as a crime. Therefore, women are treated as an aobject under adultery law.
 JUDGMENT–

 In December 2017, Joseph Shine has filed a petition raising the question on the constitutional
validity of section 497. A three judge bench headed by then CJI Dipak Mishra has referred this
petition to a five judge constitution bench which comprised of CJ Dipak Mishra, and Justices R.F
Nariman, A.M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra.
 
 The court had observed that law is based on certain ‘Societal presumption’. In four different
judgments, the court has struck down the law and declared that husband cannot be the master of his
wife. The judgment held the following things:-
 Section 497 is archaic and is constitutionally invalid-
 Section 497 disposes women from her autonomy, dignity and privacy. It is considered as the encroachment
on her right to life and personal liberty by accepting the notion of marriage which overthrows the true
equality. Equality is overthrow by adopting the sanctions of penal code to a gender based approach to the
relationship of man and woman. Sexual autonomy falls within the area of personal liberty under article 21
of Constitution of India. It is very much important in a relationship the expectations that one has from the
another. When both the spouses respect each other with equality and dignity then only the respect for
sexual autonomy is established.
 
 Adultery is no longer be a criminal offence-
 A crime is committed against the society as a whole whereas adultery is a personal issue. Adultery does not
fit into the ambit of crime as it would otherwise invade the extreme privacy sphere of marriage. However,
adultery can be considered as a civil wrong and is a valid ground for divorce.
 
 Husband is not the master of his wife-
 The judgment focuses on the fact that women should not be considered as the property of their husband or
father anymore. They have equal status in the society and should be given every opportunity to put their
stance forward.
