- CJI Dipak MisraFavored (Authored lead opinion)
- Justice R.F. NarimanFavored (Authored concurring)
- Justice A.M. KhanwilkarFavored (Concurred with Misra)
- Justice D.Y. ChandrachudFavored (Authored concurring)
- Justice Indu MalhotraFavored (Authored concurring)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 497 - Adultery)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 198(2) - Prosecution for adultery)
- Constitution of India (Articles 14, 15(1), 21)
- Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954) (Overruled)
- Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985) (Overruled)
- V. Revathi v. Union of India (1988) (Overruled)
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (Relied upon for privacy/autonomy)
This petition challenged the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the criminal law on adultery. This 158-year-old law made it a crime for a man to have sexual intercourse with the wife of another man, without the husband's consent or connivance. The law was widely criticized as being archaic and discriminatory.
The petitioners argued that Section 497 was blatantly discriminatory. It only punished the man, not the woman (who was treated as an abettor), and effectively treated the wife as the "property" of her husband, whose consent was all that mattered. It also denied women the right to prosecute their adulterous husbands. This, they argued, violated Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-discrimination), and 21 (Dignity and Personal Autonomy).
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's Case (Joseph Shine)
- Section 497 is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14. It punishes only the man for a consensual act, treating the woman as a victim with no agency.
- It violates Article 15(1) by discriminating solely on the basis of sex (gender).
- It violates Article 21 by denying women their right to dignity, personal autonomy, and sexual autonomy. It treats a woman as the property of her husband.
- The law is archaic and based on Victorian-era morality that no longer applies.
- Section 198(2) of the CrPC, which allowed only the husband to file a complaint, was also unconstitutional.
Respondent's Case (Union of India)
- Adultery is a public wrong that threatens the sanctity of marriage, which is a core social institution.
- The law is designed to protect the institution of marriage, not to treat women as property.
- Previous judgments (like Yusuf Abdul Aziz) upheld the law, stating the exemption for women was a "special provision" under Article 15(3).
- Decriminalizing adultery could lead to the breakdown of families. The matter should be left to Parliament to decide.
Case Progression Timeline
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay
Supreme Court upholds Section 497, stating the exemption for women is a "special provision" under Article 15(3).
1954Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India
SC again upholds Section 497, rejecting arguments that it treats women as chattel and is discriminatory.
1985Writ Petition Filed
Joseph Shine, an NRI, files a PIL challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC.
December 2017Referral to 5-Judge Bench
A 3-judge bench, noting the conflict with recent privacy and equality judgments, refers the matter to a 5-judge Constitution Bench.
January 5, 2018Hearing by 5-Judge Bench
The Constitution Bench hears arguments on whether the law is archaic, arbitrary, and violates dignity and equality.
August 2018Supreme Court Judgment
The 5-judge bench unanimously strikes down Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC as unconstitutional.
September 27, 2018In a unanimous 5-0 judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC as unconstitutional. The Court held that the law was archaic, discriminatory, and violated the fundamental rights of women.
The judges, in four concurring opinions, found that Section 497 was "manifestly arbitrary" and violated Article 14 (Equality) because it treated women as the property of their husbands, giving the husband sole right to prosecute the adulterer. It also violated Article 15(1) as it was based on gender stereotypes. Crucially, the Court held that the law infringed upon the dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy of women under Article 21, by denying them the right to make independent choices about their sexuality. The Court overruled its previous judgments in Yusuf Abdul Aziz, Sowmithri Vishnu, and V. Revathi. Section 198(2) of the CrPC was also struck down. The Court clarified that adultery would remain a valid ground for civil remedies like divorce.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The judgment was a powerful assertion of individual autonomy and gender equality. CJI Misra's opinion stated that any law that treats a woman with inequality is unconstitutional and that the "husband is not the master of the wife." Justice Nariman found the law to be an "archaic" provision. Justice Chandrachud's opinion was notable for its focus on sexual autonomy as a part of dignity under Article 21, stating that Section 497 "denies to a woman the right to sexual autonomy" and "perpetuates the notion that a woman is her husband's chattel." Justice Indu Malhotra pointed out that the law was based on the paternalistic assumption that a woman is a victim with no independent agency. The judgment collectively dismantled the law's foundation, which was rooted in Victorian morality and the concept of women as property rather than equal partners in a marriage.
FINAL VERDICT
- Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is declared unconstitutional and void.
- Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which gave the husband exclusive right to prosecute, is also declared unconstitutional.
- The law on adultery was found to be manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 (Equality).
- It was held to be discriminatory on the basis of gender, violating Article 15(1).
- It was held to violate the Right to Life with Dignity, Privacy, and Autonomy under Article 21.
- The judgment overruled previous precedents including Yusuf Abdul Aziz, Sowmithri Vishnu, and V. Revathi.
- It was clarified that adultery remains a valid ground for civil divorce.
RATIO DECIDENDI
A law that criminalizes adultery in a manner that treats women as the property of their husbands, punishes only the male partner, and denies women agency and sexual autonomy, is manifestly arbitrary and violates the constitutional principles of equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and the right to life with dignity and personal autonomy (Article 21). The husband cannot be considered the "master" of his wife, and legal sovereignty of one sex over the other is unconstitutional.