Durga Kiran

BBALLB

Joseph Shine v. Union of India

Abstract
The Indian Supreme Court invalidated Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which made
adultery a crime, in the historic 2018 case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India. This landmark
ruling upheld women's equality and individual autonomy while simultaneously challenging
gender bias in weddings and repealing an antiquated regulation. The ruling established
constitutional values of equality, decency, and individual freedom in married partnerships,
redefining marriage law. The court's decision to invalidate Section 497 established a
precedent that emphasized the autonomy and fundamental rights of individuals in marriages.
This marked a significant shift in Indian marital jurisprudence, with a focus on
acknowledging and defending gender equality and individual autonomy within the institution
of marriage.

Core issue

The case examined Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 198 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which limits adultery charges to husbands. Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution were discussed, with a focus on marital equality and any violations. The
fundamental question examined whether these laws represented women as property,
undermining their equality and dignity. It was a turning point in the analysis of how
discriminatory adultery laws were and how well they aligned with fundamental rights and
gender parity as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Legal norm and justification

 Assessment of Article 497: The court examined Section 497, which made adultery
illegal but only applied to males who had extramarital affairs with the wives of other
men. It was claimed that while there was no legal action against a woman, there was a
provision for a man to be punished for adultery. Due to the lack of a relevant legal
provision, women were not allowed to submit a complaint under the Section against
their husbands for adultery.
 Right to Equality (Article 14): The broad rules that define the scope of basic rights
must be considered in conjunction with Article 14. While there can never be
discrimination on the basis of sex in general, the Constitution specifically makes
protections for women and children in certain situations. One aspect of status and
opportunity equality mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution is found in Article
14 of the Constitution of India. It brought attention to the discriminatory treatment of
men and women in married partnerships under Section 497. This clause of the
constitution was deemed to be violated by the unequal treatment based on gender.
 Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 15): The Indian Constitution's Article 15
prohibits discrimination on any basis. It prohibits classifications based on protected
grounds, thereby implementing the basic principle of equality found in Article 14 in
particular instances. It was examined how the constitutional protection against
discrimination, Article 15, was differential in a marital relationship under Section 497.
That it causes an irreversible mark on a woman's constitutionally guaranteed right
under Article 15.
 Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): We will discuss the matter in light of
Article 21 of the Constitution. It was argued that the clause violates women's rights to
sexual autonomy and self-determination, thus undermining their dignity. It
contravenes Article 21. The court looked at how marriage autonomy and personal
liberties were violated by making adultery a crime under Section 497, which was
safeguarded by this fundamental clause. Limiting sexual autonomy in order to enforce
forced fidelity is an infringement on the basic right to equality and dignity guaranteed
by Article 21.

Ratio Decidendi

The "reason for the decision" is known as the ratio decidendi. The phrase describes a
crucial piece of evidence or line of reasoning in a case that determines the verdict. It
describes the procedures needed to settle a disagreement the settlement must have a direct
bearing on the topic or issues at the center of the current dispute.

The ruling that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was unconstitutionally served as the
ratio decidendi, or binding principle, in the Joseph Shine v. Union of India case. The court
determined that criminalizing adultery as outlined in Section 497 violated several
fundamental rights, including the Indian Constitution's Articles 14 (right to equality), 15
(prohibition of sex-based discrimination), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

Women are protected from penalty for aiding and abetting under Section 497, it was
mentioned. This clause, which is covered by Article 15, said that girls will gain from it.
Article 15(3) was inserted to shield women from patriarchy and to free them from
oppression. To assist them in locating qualified men, this text was prepared. But instead
of being a kind of protective discrimination, Section 497 is founded on paternalism and
patriarchy.

Sexual as well as private privacy are sacred rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. Like any other individual, a girl has the right to privacy. One's ability to
make significant life decisions is a measure of their autonomy. The submission
concentrated on the provision's discriminatory nature, which violated Articles 14, 15, and
21's inherent ideals of equality, non-discrimination, and individual autonomy.

Obiter Dicta

Obiter dicta, which translates to "other things said," describes remarks or rulings from the
court that do not directly impact the outcome or the ruling's guiding principles. Obiter
dicta are not legally enforceable as precedent for cases in the future, in contrast to ratio
decidendi. These are essentially statements and viewpoints that are exchanged and not
closely related to the key arguments of the case. The crime is based on the idea that
women are a husband's property, and adultery is considered to be a theft of his property
because it states that a husband's approval or complicity would not constitute a crime.

The judges have also discussed changing dynamics in married couples or how
societal norms and people's views on marriage are changing. It is possible that these
conversations were not the primary reasons for adhering to Section 497. The court might
have made observations or comments criticizing historical perceptions of marriage,
societal expectations, or legal frameworks that undermined the equality and autonomy of
individuals within marriages. These remarks, although not forming the crux of the
decision, could provide additional context to the court's perspective on the issue.

In conclusion, ratio decidendi serves as the precedent-setting concept or the primary

justification for the court's ruling in a particular case. Contrarily, obiter dicta are extra
remarks or observations made by the court that do not significantly affect the outcome or
establish legally binding precedents.