The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Joseph Shine vs Union of India marked a watershed moment in the evolution of Indian criminal law and gender justice. For over a century, Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalized adultery—specifically penalizing any man who engaged in a sexual relationship with a married woman, without the consent of her husband. This colonial-era law was long criticized for treating women as property and perpetuating patriarchal values. The Joseph Shine case not only challenged this framework but also catalyzed nuanced debates on personal liberty, autonomy, and the state’s role in regulating private relationships. The impact of this judgment continues to resonate within Indian legal and social discourse.
Section 497 IPC, drafted in the 19th century by the British, made adultery a criminal offense but only held the male third party accountable, exempting women from punishment regardless of their consent or agency. Notably, a wife could not prosecute her husband’s affair; only the aggrieved husband had legal standing if his wife was unfaithful.
This legal asymmetry reflected deep-seated gender biases. The law neither recognized the autonomy of women nor treated both partners in the adulterous relationship as equals. Critics argued that Section 497 objectified married women, casting them as a husband’s exclusive possession.
In 2017, Joseph Shine, an Indian businessman, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of Section 497. Shine’s petition argued that the law violated the rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and personal liberty (Article 21).
The five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and including Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra, undertook a comprehensive review. The petition catalyzed an unprecedented examination of societal evolution, individual rights, and the intersection between law and morality.
“The law in question was a reflection of Victorian morality and gender inequality—a relic that no longer serves any rationale in a constitutional democracy.”
— Supreme Court Bench, Joseph Shine vs Union of India
Central to the Supreme Court’s rationale was the recognition that Section 497 undermined gender equality. By treating wives as their husbands’ property, the law denied them agency in questions of consent and criminality. The bench held that constitutional protections under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) were unequivocally violated.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that criminalizing consensual relationships between adults intruded upon individuals’ right to privacy and autonomy—a principle the Court earlier affirmed in the Puttaswamy v Union of India judgment on privacy.
Another pivotal aspect was the notion that the state ought not to police private moral failings among consenting adults. The judgment made clear that adultery, while a valid ground for divorce, could not justify criminal sanction.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s opinion articulated this distinction, emphasizing that personal wrongs in the realm of marriage should not be punished by the criminal justice system.
The judgment cited progressive international trends, recognizing that few modern democracies punish adultery through criminal law. Several countries have either struck down or repealed similar statutes, opting to address adultery within civil law frameworks—primarily as grounds for divorce or civil remedies.
Following the Joseph Shine judgment, Section 497 was declared unconstitutional and struck down. Adultery ceased to be a criminal offense, though it remains a valid ground for divorce under civil law. This marked a significant shift in the legal treatment of marital relationships and individual freedoms.
Women’s rights advocates widely lauded the decision as a historic step toward gender justice. By removing the double standards embedded in the law, the judgment aligned Indian jurisprudence more closely with constitutional values of equality and personal liberty.
Yet, the ruling also sparked broader conversations about the boundaries of personal morality and legal intervention. Some opponents voiced concerns that decriminalization might undermine the sanctity of marriage or lead to social instability. However, systematic evidence from countries that decriminalized adultery shows no observable spike in marital breakdowns solely due to such legal changes.
The decision reinforced the Supreme Court’s willingness to revisit archaic statutes in light of evolving constitutional values. Alongside other landmark judgments—such as the recognition of privacy rights and the decriminalization of consensual same-sex relationships (Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India)—Joseph Shine stands as a testament to India’s ongoing legal modernization.
Opponents, including some religious and social conservatives, argued the removal of criminal sanctions might weaken deterrence against extramarital affairs. Critics contended that the state’s role in upholding marital fidelity was justified to maintain social order.
However, this view was robustly challenged by the Court, which maintained that criminal law is not a suitable instrument for enforcing strictly personal moral codes.
Some legal scholars note that while the judgment advanced the cause of gender equality, it also leaves open the question of how the state and society should address real harms arising from marital infidelity—such as emotional distress or domestic violence—within civil frameworks rather than by criminalization.
While Joseph Shine addressed the gender bias in Section 497, experts point to continuing gaps. Issues such as marital rape and civil remedies for emotional abuse remain critical challenges. The Supreme Court signaled the need for comprehensive reform in India’s matrimonial laws to address these broader concerns.
The Joseph Shine vs Union of India judgment represents more than a technical change in criminal law; it is emblematic of the Indian judiciary’s broader commitment to upholding individual freedoms and dismantling outdated patriarchal statutes. By prioritizing constitutional morality over inherited norms, the Supreme Court took a definitive stand on personal autonomy, gender equality, and the limits of state intrusion in private life. As societal attitudes and legal principles continue to evolve, the impact of Joseph Shine endures as both a judicial milestone and a catalyst for deeper reflection on justice in modern India.
Section 497 IPC criminalized adultery by punishing a man who engaged in a sexual relationship with a married woman without her husband’s consent. The law did not penalize the woman or allow wives to prosecute unfaithful husbands.
No, the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling decriminalized adultery, removing criminal penalties for consensual relationships outside marriage. However, adultery remains a valid ground for divorce in civil proceedings.
By striking down Section 497, the judgment removed a law that treated women as property and denied them agency. The decision affirmed constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty for all genders.
While the judgment removed criminal penalties, it did not condone or encourage adultery. Instead, it recognizes that matters of marital morality should be resolved within the civil justice system, not the criminal courts.
Yes, adultery remains a ground for divorce under Indian family law. Spouses can cite adultery in civil courts seeking dissolution of marriage or related remedies.
There is no substantial evidence indicating that decriminalizing adultery increases divorce rates or undermines marriage stability. Most countries that have adopted similar changes have not observed major negative societal effects attributed solely to this legal reform.
India’s criminal justice framework relies heavily on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an extensive legal…
Bail is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that an accused person is not unnecessarily…
Public health stands as a cornerstone for any society aspiring to thrive, innovate, and achieve…
India’s roads are among the busiest, most diverse, and sometimes, most chaotic in the world.…
The Indian Constitution stands as a beacon for justice, equality, and liberty. Among its many…
Article 20 stands as one of the fundamental safeguards within the Indian Constitution, providing essential…