Skip to main content

CASE REVIEW OF JOSEPH SHINE VS UOI

  

CASE REVIEW OF JOSEPH SHINE VS UOI

 

INTRODUCTION 

Adultery is illegal in India, according to section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 497 has been challenged in court multiple times in the past, but each time the Supreme Court has upheld its validity. However, in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India struck down the 158-year-old Victorian morality statute prohibiting adultery on September 27, 2018.

 

FACTS

The legality of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged by hotelier Joseph Shine. The petition's main goal was to protect Indian men from being punished by vindictive women or their husbands for extramarital affairs. In Kerala, a close friend of the petitioner committed suicide after a female coworker accused him of rape.

COURTS JUDGEMENT

A three judge bench headed by then CJI Dipak Mishra had referred this petition to a five judge constitution bench which comprised of CJ Dipak Mishra, and Justices R.F Nariman, A.M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra.

 

The court had observed that law is based on certain ‘Societal presumption’. In four different judgments, the court has struck down the law and declared that husband cannot be the master of his wife. The judgment held the following things:-

 

  1. Section 497 is archaic and is constitutionally invalid-

Section 497 disposes women from her autonomy, dignity and privacy. It is considered as the encroachment on her right to life and personal liberty by accepting the notion of marriage which overthrows the true equality. Equality is overthrow by adopting the sanctions of penal code to a gender based approach to the relationship of man and woman. Sexual autonomy falls within the area of personal liberty under article 21 of Constitution of India. It is very much important in a relationship the expectations that one has from the another. When both the spouses respect each other with equality and dignity then only the respect for sexual autonomy is established.

  1. Adultery is no longer be a criminal offence-

A crime is committed against the society as a whole whereas adultery is a personal issue. Adultery does not fit into the ambit of crime as it would otherwise invade the extreme privacy sphere of marriage. However, adultery can be considered as a civil wrong and is a valid ground for divorce.

 

  1. Husband is not the master of his wife-

The judgment focuses on the fact that women should not be considered as the property of their husband or father anymore. They have equal status in the society and should be given every opportunity to put their stance forward.

 



ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT 


The Supreme Court of India overturned section 497 of the Indian Penal Code in this case. The court imposed restrictions on the institution of marriage, which is the bedrock of Indian culture. Adultery-related offences will be eliminated as a result of this. This decision has resulted in sexual anarchy. Adultery is no longer regarded as a civil wrong, and it can only be used as a basis for divorce. However, the grounds are insufficiently compelling, and hence this cannot become Lex Loci. If adultery is not regarded a crime, divorce on this basis would be a fruitless endeavour. Criminal law is regarded as a defender of Indian society's moral norms. .If we start subjecting laws to our personal rationale, we'll end up with chaos, because there will always be a counter-narrative.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to have perfor
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more