This document discusses the Joseph Shine v. Union of India case regarding Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code related to adultery. It summarizes that the case found Section 497 to be unconstitutional as it treated women as property, violated the right to equality and autonomy, and was based on outdated notions of purity and possession within marriage. The court recognized that the constitution promotes societal change and individuals retain autonomy over their sexual agency even within marriage.

1. JOSEPH SHINE V. UNION OF
INDIA-AIR 2018 SC 4898
 “A constitutional court cannot remain entrenched in a precedent, for the controversy
relates to the lives of human beings who transcendentally grow.
 The hallmark of a truly ‘transformative Constitution’ is that it promotes and
engenders societal change”.
 14, 15 and 21 of Indian constitution
 without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not
amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery,
 For the purposes of sub- section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman
shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 497

2.  Yusuf Abdul Aziz-14,15..15(3)
 Sowmithri Vishnu Case-a man could’ve been the seducer , may have gone and a certain
transformation
 V. Revathi-neither wife nor husband has right to prosecute disloyal spouse.
• that ‘women purity’ and ‘man marital entitlement’ to her sexual possession is antiquated thought
• that right to autonomy in sexual agency of individual doesn’t cease on marriage,
• a husband and wife were 'one in flesh and blood'.

3. • “It is true that the principle of choice can never be absolute under a liberal
Constitution and the law restricts one individual's choice to prevent harm or injury
to others”.
• a husband and wife were 'one in flesh and blood