Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, decided unanimously by a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on 27 September 2018, struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, decriminalising adultery in India. The Bench — CJI Dipak Misra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, R.F. Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra — held that both provisions violate Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and overruled Yusuf Abdul Aziz, Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi. It is tested heavily in CLAT, judiciary exams, AIBE and UPSC Law Optional as the governing authority on gender-neutrality in criminal law.
Key Takeaways
- Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC struck down as unconstitutional.
- 5-judge Constitution Bench, unanimous, CJI-led, 27 September 2018.
- Overruled three prior SC judgments upholding the provisions.
Case Fact Sheet
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Case name | Joseph Shine v. Union of India |
| Citation | (2019) 3 SCC 39 |
| Neutral citation | — |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | 5-judge Constitution Bench |
| CJI-led | Yes |
| Judges | CJI Dipak Misra; Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, R.F. Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra |
| Judgment date | 27 September 2018 |
| Disposal | Allowed — petition allowed; Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC struck down |
| Key statutes | Section 497 IPC; Section 198(2) CrPC; Articles 14, 15, 21 |
| Judgment importance | Landmark |
Ratio in One Line
Ratio: Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are unconstitutional because they treat women as the property of their husbands, deny them moral agency, and criminalise consensual adult sexual conduct in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
Statutes and Articles Invoked
| Statute / Article | Role in the Judgment |
|---|---|
| Section 497, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Offence of adultery — struck down as unconstitutional |
| Section 198(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Restricted complaint to husband only — struck down as unconstitutional |
| Article 14, Constitution of India | Equality before law — violated by gendered classification |
| Article 15, Constitution of India | Prohibition of sex-based discrimination — violated |
| Article 21, Constitution of India | Personal liberty, dignity, sexual autonomy — violated |
Who decided this case?
Answer: Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39 was decided by a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The Bench delivered a unanimous verdict on 27 September 2018, with four concurring judgments — by CJI Dipak Misra (for himself and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar), Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra.
| Role | Judge |
|---|---|
| Presiding (CJI) | Chief Justice Dipak Misra |
| Concurring | Justice A.M. Khanwilkar |
| Concurring (separate opinion) | Justice R.F. Nariman |
| Concurring (separate opinion) | Justice D.Y. Chandrachud |
| Concurring (separate opinion) | Justice Indu Malhotra |
What are the facts in brief?
Answer: Joseph Shine, an Indian citizen residing abroad, filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalised adultery only against the man and treated the married woman as a passive object. The petition argued that both Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC — restricting the right to file a complaint to the husband alone — violated Articles 14, 15 and 21.
Three prior Supreme Court decisions — Yusuf Abdul Aziz (1954), Sowmithri Vishnu (1985) and V. Revathi (1988) — had upheld Section 497 on grounds of social morality and protection of women. The Bench reconsidered these decisions in light of evolving constitutional values of dignity, autonomy and gender equality affirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
What were the issues before the court?
Answer: The 5-judge Bench framed four principal issues in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, centred on the constitutional validity of adultery as a criminal offence.
- Issue 1: Whether Section 497 IPC violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution by creating a gender-based classification.
- Issue 2: Whether the exclusion of the married woman from criminal liability under Section 497 IPC is protective or discriminatory.
- Issue 3: Whether Section 198(2) CrPC violates constitutional rights by restricting the right to file a complaint to the husband.
- Issue 4: Whether the prior decisions in Yusuf Abdul Aziz, Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi should be overruled.
What did the court hold?
Answer: In Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, the 5-judge Constitution Bench held, allowing the petition, that Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC are unconstitutional and void, decriminalising adultery in India.
- Holding 1: Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and is struck down in its entirety.
- Holding 2: Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unconstitutional insofar as it restricts the right to file a complaint to the husband alone.
- Holding 3: Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 385; Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 657; and V. Revathi v. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 547 are expressly overruled.
- Holding 4: Adultery may continue to constitute a civil wrong and a ground for divorce, but the State cannot criminalise consensual sexual conduct between adults.
Why is Joseph Shine a landmark?
Answer: Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark because it dismantles a colonial-era criminal provision that treated women as the property of their husbands, establishes that gender-neutrality is mandatory in Indian criminal law, and affirms that personal autonomy and dignity are integral to Article 21. Together with Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, it forms the trilogy that redefined Indian constitutional morality around dignity, autonomy and equality.
Exam Angle
This case is essential for CLAT, Judiciary (Prelims + Mains), AIBE, UGC-NET Law and UPSC Law Optional — covering Constitutional Law (fundamental rights) and Criminal Law (IPC striking).
Sample MCQ
In Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, the Supreme Court struck down which provision of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that it violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution? (a) Section 375 IPC (b) Section 377 IPC (c) Section 497 IPC (d) Section 498A IPC
Answer: (c)
Sample descriptive question
"Joseph Shine v. Union of India completes the constitutional trilogy of dignity, autonomy and equality begun by Puttaswamy and Navtej Johar." Critically discuss, with reference to the reasoning adopted by the 5-judge Bench on gender-neutrality, sexual autonomy and the limits of criminal law. (Judiciary Mains / UPSC Law Optional, 15–20 marks)
Five facts to memorise
- Case: Joseph Shine v. Union of India; Citation: (2019) 3 SCC 39.
- Bench: 5-judge Constitution Bench; Date: 27 September 2018; Case number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 194 of 2017.
- Core holding: Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC struck down under Articles 14, 15 and 21.
- Statutes interpreted: Section 497 IPC; Section 198(2) CrPC; Articles 14, 15, 21 of the Constitution.
- Overruled cases: Yusuf Abdul Aziz (1954), Sowmithri Vishnu (1985), V. Revathi (1988).
Syllabus mapping
| Exam | Where it appears |
|---|---|
| CLAT | Fundamental rights passages; legal reasoning on gender equality |
| Judiciary Prelims | Constitutional law MCQs on Article 14/15/21; IPC striking |
| Judiciary Mains | Essays on gender equality, constitutional morality, IPC reform |
| AIBE | Constitutional law; criminal law |
| UGC-NET Law | Paper II — Constitutional Law; Human Rights unit |
| UPSC Law Optional | Paper I — Fundamental Rights; Paper II — IPC |
Related cases in the constitutional-law cluster
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 — 5-judge Bench. Decided three weeks before Joseph Shine. Struck down Section 377 IPC on the same Article 14/15/21 + dignity framework. Companion precedent for autonomy jurisprudence.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — 9-judge Bench. Recognised privacy and decisional autonomy as fundamental rights under Article 21. Constitutional foundation on which Joseph Shine rests.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 — 5-judge Bench. Struck down instant triple talaq. Earlier application of constitutional-morality analysis to gender-discriminatory personal-law practice.
- Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 385 — 4-judge Bench. Earlier upheld Section 497 IPC; expressly overruled by Joseph Shine.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court hold in Joseph Shine v. Union of India?
In Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, a 5-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC as violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21. Yusuf Abdul Aziz, Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi were overruled. Adultery is no longer a criminal offence — only a ground for civil remedies like divorce.
Why did the Court strike down Section 497 IPC?
Section 497 IPC criminalised adultery only against the man and treated the wife as a passive object without agency. The Bench held this violated Article 14 (unequal treatment), Article 15 (sex-based discrimination) and Article 21 (dignity + sexual autonomy). The State cannot criminalise consensual adult conduct absent direct public harm.
Which earlier cases did Joseph Shine overrule?
Three Supreme Court decisions that had upheld Section 497 IPC: Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 385; Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 657; and V. Revathi v. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 547. All three were held incompatible with contemporary constitutional values of dignity, autonomy and equality.
Is adultery still a ground for divorce after Joseph Shine?
Yes. Joseph Shine decriminalised adultery but preserved its civil-wrong status. It remains a valid divorce ground under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 27(1)(a) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and cognate personal-law provisions. Only the criminal route (Section 198(2) CrPC) has been removed.
How is Joseph Shine connected to Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy?
Joseph Shine, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 form a constitutional trilogy on autonomy and dignity. Puttaswamy established privacy; Navtej Johar applied it to strike down Section 377 IPC; Joseph Shine completed the triad by striking down Section 497 IPC on the same Article 14/15/21 + dignity framework.
Cross-references
- Practitioner guide: Joseph Shine v. Union of India — Practitioner Guide on Post-Joseph-Shine Matrimonial Litigation — ratio decidendi, civil-remedy framework, and practice implications for matrimonial counsel.
- Glossary: constitutional-morality, Article 21, gender-equality.
Source
This article is produced from the Veritect AI Legal Database — Veritect's proprietary, authoritatively-verified corpus of Supreme Court of India judgments, curated with our legal-AI pipeline. The underlying decision is Joseph Shine v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2017, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27 September 2018, reported at (2019) 3 SCC 39. Statutory text cross-referenced from India Code. This summary is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.