LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 31 January 2023

Did Joseph Shine decide anything about Sections 45 and 63 of the Army Act 1950?

Joseph Shine v. Union of India
2023 INSC 87 · Miscellaneous Application No. 2204 of 2020 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2017
Coram: K. M. Joseph; Ajay Rastogi; Aniruddha Bose; Hrishikesh Roy; C.T. Ravikumar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.45 Army Act 1950📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. In that case the Court was concerned only with the validity of Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC, struck down on the premise that they offended Articles 14, 15 and 21. Since the scheme of the Acts, in the context in particular of Article 33 of the Constitution, did not fall for consideration, the Court was neither called upon nor did it venture to pronounce on the effect of Sections 45 and 63 of the 1950 Act or the corresponding provisions in the other Acts.

Headnote

Army Act 1950 — s.45 — s.63 — s.69 — Constitution of India — Art.33 — Indian Penal Code 1860 — s.497 — Clarification of a judgment — Miscellaneous application in the guise of review — Indian Penal Code 1860 — s.497 — Army Act 1950 — s.45 — s.63 — Scope of Joseph Shine clarified — Held: Joseph Shine struck down Section 497 of the Penal Code and Section 198(2) of the Code as offending Articles 14, 15 and 21, and had no occasion to consider the Acts governing the Armed Forces; it did not pronounce on Sections 45 and 63 of the Army Act 1950 or their counterparts. (¶24) Practice and procedure — Application for clarification or modification which is in substance a review — Held further: An application styled as one for clarification, modification or recall which is in substance a review deserves to be rejected, since what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (¶18) Practice and procedure — Finality of a judicial pronouncement — Held further: A judicial pronouncement cannot be modified once delivered by filing a miscellaneous application; the practice reduces litigation to a gambit and must be firmly discouraged. Position clarified; application disposed of. (¶19, 25)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 24In view of the fact that the scheme of the Acts in the context, in particular, of Article 33 of the Constitution did not fall for the consideration of this Court, we must necessarily observe and clarify that the judgment of this Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 was not at all concerned with the effect and operation of the relevant provisions in the Acts which have been placed before us by the applicant. In other words, this Court was neither called upon nor has it ventured to pronounce on the effect of Sections 45 and 63 of the 1950 Act as also the corresponding provisions in other Acts or any other provisions of the Acts.
Acts & Sections
s.45 Army Act 1950s.63 Army Act 1950s.69 Army Act 1950Art.33 Constitution of Indias.497 Indian Penal Code 1860s.198(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Joseph Shine v. Union of India — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can a judgment be modified by an application styled as one for clarification?Does striking down Section 497 IPC mean the Court approved of adultery?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections