Joseph Shine vs Union Of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 642

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 642

K. M. JOSEPH, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
Joseph Shine – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sarvesh Singh, AOR Mrs. Madhavi Divan, A.S.G. Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. R Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd Akhil, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataramani, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Mansi Sood, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Nabh, Adv. Mr. Aanorita Deb, Adv. Mr. Shubham Saigal, Adv. Mr. Aishani Narain, Adv. Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Ms. Thulasi K Raj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Ms. Anannya Ghosh, AOR Mr. Dushyant Manocha, Adv. Ms. Mrinalini Mishra, Adv. Ms. Chitra Vats, Adv. Ms. Doel Bose, Adv.

ORDER

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2204 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 194 OF 2017

(1) Applications for intervention and impleadment are allowed.

(2) This miscellaneous application is filed by the Union of India seeking the following clarification:

“(a) That persons subject to Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act, by virtue of Article 33 of the Constitution of India, being a distinct class, any promiscuous or adulterous acts by such persons should be allowed to be governed by the provisions of Sections 45 or 63 of the Army Act, Sections 45 or 65 of the Air Force Act and Sections 54(2) or 74 of the Navy Act being special legislation and considering the requirements of discipline and proper discharge of their duty.”

(3) The applicant is seeking clarification of the judgment of this Court reported in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39. It must be noticed that the applicant was the sole respondent in the said case.

(4) The reasons which have driven the applicant to seek the clarification are as follows:

It is the case of the applicant that this Court has undoubtedly proceeded to find Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 642

K. M. JOSEPH, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, C. T. RAVIKUMARJoseph Shine – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

K. M. JOSEPH, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
Joseph Shine – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent