GK Question

polity hard fill_blank

In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized that marital relationships involve a zone of ______ protected under Article 21, and State cannot criminalize private consensual conduct within this zone without compelling justification.

  1. publicity
  2. privacy
  3. surveillance
  4. regulation

Answer: privacy

Joseph Shine (2018) privacy in marital relationships: (a) Context: Challenge to Section 497 IPC criminalizing adultery (only men punished; women treated as property of husbands), (b) Supreme Court holding (unanimous): (i) Recognized marital relationships involve zone of privacy protected under Article 21, (ii) State cannot criminalize private consensual conduct within this zone without compelling justification, (iii) Section 497 unconstitutional: Violates Article 14 (arbitrary classification), Article 15 (discrimination based on sex), Article 21 (violates autonomy, dignity, privacy in marital relationships), (c) Applications: (i) Gender justice: Foundation for subsequent cases on marital rights, reproductive autonomy, LGBTQ+ rights, (ii) Personal law reform: Reinforces principle that personal laws subject to Fundamental Rights scrutiny, (iii) Social change: Legal reform requires accompanying social education to shift patriarchal attitudes, (d) Rationale: (i) Equality: Law cannot treat women as property; must recognize equal agency in marital relationships, (ii) Dignity: Marital relationships based on mutual respect, autonomy, not ownership, (iii) Privacy: State cannot criminalize private consensual conduct between adults; marital privacy protected under Article 21, (e) Illustrates evolving gender jurisprudence: From patriarchal norms to equality, autonomy, dignity; Constitutional Morality guides interpretation of rights in evolving social contexts.

Topic Joseph Shine Case - Privacy in Marital Relationships
Exam Relevance Joseph Shine marital privacy critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams