The document discusses two key Supreme Court cases related to public interest litigation (PIL) in India: 1) Joseph Shine v. UOI (2019) decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the IPC, finding it violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution by discriminating against women and infringing on privacy and dignity. 2) Arjun Gopal & Ors. v. UOI (2017) addressed a blanket ban on firecrackers and balanced the right to clean air under Article 21 with livelihood interests. It issued limited directions instead of a complete ban.

1. JOSEPH SHINE v. UOI (2019) 3
SCC 39
ARJUN GOPAL & Ors. v. UOI
(2017) 16 SCC 280
1.
2.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
COMPONENT 1
MEHER MANSI 1850550

2. WHAT IS PIL?
Nowhere defined- Black's law dictionary: Public
Interest Litigation means a legal action initiated in
a court of law for the enforcement of public
interest or general interest in which the public
or class of the community have pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected."

3. PILs are extensions of Writ Jurisdiction
Rectifies the limitations of writs-locus standi,
exhaustion of alternate remedies, principle of res
judicata, doctrine of laches.
Not adversarial- detailed inspection by the court-
collaborative and investigative litigation
Flexibility in procedural aspects
Prospective
Remedial/corrective - not compensatory
Ongoing & impact beyond parties
FEATURES OF PIL:

4. Character of Indian Constitution
Progressive social legislations
On the side of poor?
Liberal interpretation of locus standi
Article 21
Appointment of commission
FEATURES contributed to the growth
of PIL:

5. JOSEPH SHINE v. UOI
(2019) 3 SCC 39- ADULTERY-S.497
CASE
BEFORE 5-JUDGE BENCH
PREVIOUSLY DECIDED BY A
THREE JUDGE BENCH

6. Facts:
Joseph Shine, a hotelier challenged the constitutionality
of section 497 of IPC.
The core reason behind this petition was to shield Indian
men from being punished for extra-marital relationships
by vengeful women or their husbands.
Petitioner's close friend, in Kerala, committed suicide
after a woman co-worker made malicious rape charge on
him. Further section 497 is an egregious occurrence of
sexuality unfairness, authoritative imperialism and male
patriotism.

7. The Court reviewed the correctness of the precedents –
Yusuf Abdul Aziz, Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi – which
had in the past upheld Section 497 as constitutionally
valid.
This case was first heard before a three-judge bench
headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
Joseph Shine, a non-resident Keralite, filed public interest
litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition
challenged the constitutionality of the offence of adultery
under Section 497 of the IPC read with Section 198(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

8. The three-judge bench referred the matter to a five-judge
Constitution Bench and noted: ‘Prima facie, on a perusal of
Section 497 of IPC, we find that it grants relief to the wife
by treating her as a victim. It is also worthy to note that
when an offence is committed by both of them, one is liable
for the criminal offence, but the other is absolved.
..Ordinarily, the criminal law proceeds on gender
neutrality, but in this provision, as we perceive, the said
concept is absent.’

9. On 11 July the Centre filed an affidavit, arguing
that diluting adultery in any form will impact the
‘sanctity of marriage‘.
The five-judge Bench started hearing the matter
from August 1st 2018 onwards. On September
27th 2018, the Bench delivered its judgment,
decriminalising adultery.

10. Whether Section 497 is an excessive penal
provision which needs to be decriminalised?
Whether exemption granted to married
women under Section 497 violates the right
to equality under the Constitution?
Whether Section 497 should be made gender-
neutral by including women as offenders?
ISSUES:

11. Section 497 IPC criminalised adultery: it imposed culpability on a
man who engages in sexual intercourse with another man’s wife.
Adultery was punishable with a maximum imprisonment of five
years. Women though were exempted from prosecution. Section
497 IPC was inapplicable when a married man engaged in sexual
intercourse with an unmarried woman.
Section 198(2) of CrPC specified how a complainant may file
charges for offences committed under Sections 497 and 498 IPC.
Section 198(2) CrPC specified that only the husband may file a
complaint for the offence of adultery.
LAWS APPLICABLE:

12. As per Section 497, a woman cannot file a complaint
against her husband for adultery because there is no such
legal provision.
Women are treated as an object under the adultery law
because according to section 497 if the husband agrees,
the act is not a crime.
THE DIVORCE ACT, 1869
Articles 14, 15 and 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949
The judgment borrows from the findings of Justice
Nariman's decision in the Triple Talaq case.

13. all the issues are interlinked as the-constitutionalising
criminal law
Constitutional Aspect: Judgement held Section 497 to be
constitutionally invalid
Violative of articles 14- manifest arbitrariness,
subordination of women;15- non-discrimination and
stereotypical, 21- stripped women of dignity, sexual
autonomy and privacy
state's intrusion into the extreme privacy of the
matrimonial sphere
Analysis:

14. Analysis:
Offended two facets of Article 21 of the Constitution-
dignity of husband and wife, and the privacy attached to a
relationship between the two
DY Chandrachud- Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India,
(AIR 2018 SC 4321)- sexual autonomy as a facet of
individual liberty- when acts within personal sphere- right
to sexual privacy was a natural right, fundamental to
liberty and dignity
K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India ((2017) 10 SCC 1)
entitled to constitutional guarantee of privacy and dignity

15. Criminalisation aspect- unprincipled criminalisation-no
legally cognizable harm
not a public wrong- not against hte whole society unlike
other marital crimes
Statecross over to personal realms- husband and wife
should have the discretion
does not warrant the protection of Article 21- J. Indu
Malhotra-did not meet the three-fold test of the
Puttuswamy judgement
remain a civil wrong and a ground for divorce.
Contd...

16. Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay (1954 SCR 930), when
the man accused of adultery protested the unfairness of
exempting the wife from prosecution, the court justified it
as a measure to protect women.
In Sowmithri Vishnu vs Union of India ((1985) Supp SCC 137)
the wife sought to quash the adultery prosecution, arguing
that in denying a woman the right to prosecute the husband
and his lover, the law allowed men the license to have extra-
marital affairs. The court justified the criminalisation of a
limited class of adulterous relationships on grounds that the
woman is the victim, not the author of the crime.

17. V. Revathi vs Union of India ((1988) 2 SCC 72), while
deciding a challenge to adultery law, the court rejected
that it was discriminatory. Noting that the law did not
allow either the wife or the husband to prosecute each
other for adultery, but targeted only the “outsider” who
“invades the peace and privacy of the matrimonial unit”,
the court explained this as protecting the sanctity of
marriage.
NOT about the ethics of adultery- it is about testing
against constitutional values

18. ARJUN GOPAL & Ors. v. UOI (2017)
16 SCC 280
FIRECRACKER BAN CASE
CLASSIC ART.21 right to life v.
Livelihood-division bench

19. Background: AQI in NCR post-Diwali- 2.5PM level rise-
chest ailments-sudden exposure to toxic gases
Umbrella ban on sale, store and new manufacturing-
Arjun Gopal v. Union of India [(2016) 1 SCC 412]
Large number of prayers were made in this writ petition
filed under article 32, but the court was concerned with
only one prayer which asked for issuing a writ of
mandamus to ban the sale of firecrackers and explosives
during festive times. on the ground of different ailments
associated with air pollution.
Facts:

20. Whether blanket ban valid?- the
fate of permanent licensees
Whether this ban effecting right
to freedom of religion?
Issues:

21. Constitution of India-Articles 21,
19, 48 -A, 51 A(g)
Environmental Law- Air Pollution
Explosive Rules, 2008- R.4, 15, 84,
SchI- class 7- kinds of fireworks.
Laws:

22. Art. 21- right to life includes right to health ergo right to
breathe unpolluted air
absolute prohibition- too drastic- especially in the
absence of data linking the same to pollution
Balanced approach necessary- no injustice to those who
possess permanent license
right to life takes precedence over commercial interest
manufacturers filed an interim application for modifying
the 2016 order- Varshaman Kaushik v. UOI (2016 SCC
Online NGT 4176)
Analysis:

23. Various pollution cases analysed by SC- Sadar BAzar
Fireworks, In re noise pollution
the chemicals used are harmful- gone unnoticed by the
CPCB
NEERI and IIAS state that pollution in the NCR region is
mostly from outside the region so there is no link
no certainty it was due to the bursting of fireworks, but it
cannot be ignored
no relative assessment of other contributing factors
Analysis:

24. complete ban- extreme step- not warranted by the facts
available
16 directions given by the committee
Vardhaman Kaushik order attributed to seven factors:-
construction, burning of waste, agricultural residue,
vehicular, dust on roads, industrial-fly ash, hot mix and
stone crushers
2018 order- ban on online sale, green crackers, time limit,
composition, role of SPCB and CPCB.
Conclusion-Judgement:

25. THANK
YOU!