The Supreme Court’s ruling in Joseph Shine vs. Union of India1 falls under the jurisprudence law of reformative theory. It recreates the objective of the Indian constitution of human dignity, the creation of an equitable and unbiased society and justice.
Adultery, as defined by IPC Section 497, criminalized sexual intercourse with a woman who is the wife of another man, without the husband's consent or connivance. This provision treated women as victims rather than culprits.
A PIL challenged the constitutional validity of IPC Section 497 and Section 198 CrPC, which provided for prosecution in cases of adultery. The Supreme Court unanimously declared Section 497 unconstitutional, citing violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The case originated from a PIL filed under Article 32, challenging the validity of adultery laws. The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 and Section 198 CrPC, noting their oppressive nature and infringement upon women's autonomy and dignity.
Historically, adultery laws in India were influenced by patriarchal norms. Previous judgments upheld Section 497, but the Joseph Shine case marked a significant departure.
The petitioner argued that adultery laws were discriminatory and violated fundamental rights. The court observed that such laws perpetuated gender inequality and undermined women's rights.
The Supreme Court's decision highlighted the arbitrary nature of adultery laws and their failure to uphold equality and dignity. The judgment aligned with modern principles of gender equality and individual liberty.
Leave a comment